Skip to main content
EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, April 25, 1996

.1205

[English]

The Chair: I call this meeting to order.

Our first witness is Eric Spears, although he may consider himself our guest as well.

Mr. Spears, you were here earlier, so you know that our drill is to have you present your brief, unless you don't want to. If you'd rather just answer questions -

Mr. Eric Spears (Individual Presentation): I'd prefer to read it aloud.

The Chair: All right.

We'll have you present your brief and, depending on the amount of time left, we'll ask questions in relatively equal rounds.

Please go ahead.

Mr. Spears: First, I would like to express my appreciation to the members of the committee for inviting me to speak before you today.

I am a brother of Reta Jarvis. On Reta's behalf I wish to express her regret at not being here today. She is presently out of the country, which is something her doctors feel could be very good for her psychologically. Her travel plans were made long before the date of today's proceedings was communicated to us. She still hopes to be able to address your committee in person, be it in Ottawa or wherever, and I implore you to make that happen for her.

For anyone unfamiliar with Reta's story, I will read a brief account of the events of January 8, 1994. This event occurred in the small fishing village of Whitehead, Nova Scotia, where she lived with her husband, John.

It was a stormy winter evening as a 13-year-old boy left his house, entered a storage shed, loaded a pump-action shotgun with three shells, walked down a short dirt road, crossed the highway, and went through the woods to the Jarvis home. He rang the doorbell and then hid in some nearby bushes. When John Jarvis opened the door, the youth shot him in the face from close range, killing him instantly.

Reta was in the bedroom on the telephone to her mother, and moved to the area of the doorway to investigate the noise. A second blast from the shotgun struck her in the left side of the head and drove her backwards through a basement doorway. The boy left, confident that he had killed the couple. He would later express disappointment that he was unaware that Reta Jarvis had survived, because he had one more shell in the gun and could have finished her off.

Instead, he went home, cleaned and stored the gun, and went to bed. He slept so soundly that his father had to shake him awake the next morning to tell him of the murder. It is a miracle that Reta Jarvis is still alive. She told me afterwards of one recollection of looking down toward her left shoulder and seeing her ear hanging by a strand of flesh.

Due to the terrible storm conditions, the RCMP had to request two salt trucks to help the ambulance transporting her to the hospital, something that took hours more than it would have normally.

The psychiatrist who performed the killer's pre-court assessment called him remarkably normal except for the fact that he had failed to show remorse for the crime. He allegedly came from a home marked by poverty and domestic violence. He had a drinking problem and was addicted to chewing tobacco, which he began using at six. The youth said there were no difficulties between his family and the Jarvis'. His comment on why he killed: ``It just happened. I was angry''.

If the boy does not know why he did it, what drove him to it, then whom do we ask? Unfortunately, the people who willingly commit murder are not always willing to tell us why they did it. Rather than asking why, perhaps more emphasis should be placed on asking what we, the law-abiding public, are going to do about it.

In the case of John and Reta Jarvis, although it holds true in so many other cases, you could ask the doctors about the senseless carnage. I have provided copies to each of you of a letter from the doctor who was on the scene at the Jarvis household on the night of the attack. He said you should ask the neighbours in Whitehead about the fear.

.1210

People in Whitehead started locking their doors. That felt very strange to many of them. You could ask the families about the devastation. Ask John's parents, who had two sons. One is dead now. The other is tormented by the horrible memory of being one of the first on the scene of his brother's murder. But you cannot ask Reta's father. Her dad died heartbroken less than three weeks after the attack on Reta and John.

Ask the clergy in Whitehead about the task of healing now required in that community. Ask the police forces about the frustration of rounding up offenders and watching their wrists being slapped. Ask the judges about the guilt, knowing that the maximum penalty they can give a violent offender is often far too lenient when compared with the crime. And ultimately ask yourselves - what if it happened to you?

John Jarvis was a good husband, good son, good neighbour, and a good friend. He was a hard-working entrepreneur and a tireless volunteer. He did not deserve what fate had in store for him. It can happen to anyone. It does happen to anyone.

I would like to read you brief excerpts from Reta's victim impact statement, which was filed with the Nova Scotia provincial court for the youth's hearing in the spring of 1994:

Bullet fragments are lodged throughout the left side of my head, very close to the brain. I have total loss of hearing in my left ear which is plagued by a loud ringing noise, and no feeling in the left side of my head. My left eye is unable to close properly and I have extreme headaches. I have suffered memory loss, which most likely will end my executive career. I spend most days trying to remember the times John and I spent together and cry continually. John and I considered ourselves one person due to the closeness that we shared. I have been forced to close the business which John worked hard to create, as I am unable to run the company without him. The most horrible part of this senseless crime is that I've lost my best friend, forever - and nobody can do anything to change that!

I did not come here today, nor did Reta and I work for two years to change the Young Offenders Act, because of a need for vengeance, but rather out of the hope that other families will not have to suffer as ours has.

To that end, what we need are the types of legislation that will force violent criminals to take responsibility for their actions. Beyond that, a move towards changing our school and social systems to create a return to family values is desperately needed. People should not have to live in fear, and our legal system should be about justice. It is not a game to see who wins.

Knowing that she would be unable to attend today, Reta Jarvis prepared a statement only a few days ago. The way this was structured, that letter does not appear on the next page for you, but it is there. It reads as follows:

.1215

Many of the suggestions for changes to the Young Offenders Act, which Reta and I have felt are needed, were submitted to your committee earlier in letter form. However, I would like to now state those recommendations publicly:

1. Violent offenders, such as murderers and rapists, should face automatic trial as a result, with adult penalties, with no consideration for age.

2. Publishing of young offenders' names. In cases involving crimes of violence, it is imperative that those offenders' names, after conviction, be made available to the media. People who live in the communities where such criminals may eventually return have a right to know that a risk exists near them, so that they can decide upon possible precautions. This should happen on the first offence for violent crimes.

3. Protection of victims. In the case of my sister, she was advised by Nova Scotia justice department officials to be living elsewhere when her attacker is released from correctional services, since no one can guarantee her safety. She has lost her husband, their business, her love of life, and now her very freedom. I don't know that Reta would even want to continue to live in Whitehead, but if she did she should be protected in that right. Perhaps the youth should be barred from returning to that area, controlled by a restraining order.

4. Institution overcrowding should not translate into shorter sentences or early releases. While I do not wish to suggest that this would happen in Canada, it is a fear that I'm sure I share with many people across this country.

Reta and I visited the correctional facility for young boys at Waterville, Nova Scotia, a number of months ago. We entered as skeptics and emerged enlightened and impressed in every possible way. This institution and the programs and views of its director, Mr. Bill Lonar, I believe could be invaluable to the success of your study. However, one disturbing aspect of the information we were given was overcrowding. I believe we were told at that point, in early 1995, that Waterville was housing over 140 youths in an institution designed to handle 120.

5. Parental responsibility. Especially in cases involving neglect, abuse, or encouragement of criminal behaviour, one or both parents could be liable to face charges along with the youth.

6. Consideration should be given to the possibility of jury trials. This would echo public opinion.

7. Abolition of under-age-12 exemption. We really feel that this only promotes situations in which offenders coerce younger children to become involved in crime, without fear of punishment.

8. Broadening of training in our school systems in the areas of family values and social skills. As Waterville's director stated to us during our visit: By the time they reach our doors, something has already gone terribly wrong. It's too late.

9. Creation of a dangerous offender's category for young offenders, which would void release from incarceration on such grounds as lack of remorse or violent or threatening behaviour.

10. Bring an end to sentences running concurrently. In essence, the attempted murder of my sister and her physical suffering meant nothing in a court of law, because no further time could be added to the sentence. We were advised by the crown attorney that this was because both people were attacked during the same incident. That to me is totally ridiculous. It sounds like a bonus program: Kill one person, that one you'll pay for. All the rest are free.

11. Finally, but perhaps most important, a broader scope in sentencing. During the sentencing of my brother-in-law's killer, by his own words the judge indicated that remorse was non-existent and that the penalty he would impose upon the boy could not be expected to seem just to John's family.

.1220

New legislation must make sentences more open-ended and trust our judges to do their jobs properly. If a judge should err there are always appeals, but if a law is too lenient and a terrible crime is committed, it is too late to change the books. We reward some of this country's best legal minds by making them judges for our courts, then tie their hands against the ability to do what is right and necessary. I beg you to give our judges the power to provide justice.

In closing, I would like to ask your committee to consider one final point. Each time I hear people speak of John's death, they talk about how sad it is for Reta, John's family, and the community, but we must not lose sight of the most important fact that John Jarvis lost his life for no reason.

I realize this is not the only recent case of its kind in our country, but I also believe that Reta has shown uncommon courage in her quest to protect other families from such horror because that's what John Charles Jarvis would have done.

Because of this I feel justified in making the following suggestion. A quiet, gentle man lost his life and his wife lost everything she had lived for and looked forward to - for nothing. The one thing Reta and we, her family and friends, feel we can do is work towards major change in the Young Offenders Act as it pertains to violent crime, and do it in John's name.

Therefore, I ask you to consider official titling some part of your eventual changes to the act as the Jarvis amendment. I am sure you can see how this might give some meaning to an otherwise meaningless loss of life.

We look forward to an announcement soon on enacting major changes. Thank you all again for taking the time to consider our thoughts on these very serious issues.

The Chair: Thanks. Madam Venne.

[Translation]

Mrs. Venne (Saint-Hubert): Good morning, sir. I may have missed something but what was the sentence?

[English]

Mr. Spears: The actual complete sentence given by the judge was for three years in secured custody followed by two years in open custody. I understand, from some of the information we've been given since the youth has been incarcerated, there is a possibility that if he does not show some form of remorse, those final two years could be converted to secured custody as well. Further to that, he was also issued an order that he could not own a firearm for 60 years.

[Translation]

Mrs. Venne: According to you, what should have been the sentence?

[English]

Mr. Spears: I hope some day there will be a referendum on this sort of thing, but my sister and I - and public opinion supports this - don't have a great concern about those who break and enter. Attacks on public property are one issue where I feel a greater degree of forgiveness should be available.

When we're talking about what I call adult crimes, such as murder, rape, and drug offences that could cause death, we have to have adult penalties more like 15 to 25 years. I don't feel it's possible to put someone in an institution for three to five years and have any psychologist tell you he can guarantee that when that person comes out the public will be safe. The main issue has to be public safety. It has to be paramount.

[Translation]

Mrs. Venne: If I understand correctly, you do not believe in rehabilitation. Yesterday, we went to visit Waterville and we discussed with the director and with somme young offenders.

.1225

The director told us quite clearly that we should not build any other institutions such as his. According to him, that is not the way to go in 1996. Since he is very close to the problem, he is well aware of the effects of this type of incarceration. He told us that there should be other ways to rehabilitate young offenders.

Unfortunately, if you do not believe that a 13 year old can be rehabilitated, we will have to stop our discussion because it is something that I do believe in.

[English]

Mr. Spears: I don't want to make it sound like I don't believe in the possibility of rehabilitation. I was not there for Mr. Lonar's comments to you, but I would think he was speaking in more general terms about any of the people at that institution.

I really want to concentrate more on the people who are causing personal harm and death. I believe that rehabilitation is possible, even for people who commit murder. I'm just saying I find it difficult to believe we can guarantee public safety within three to five years. I really strongly feel that the Canadian public points to the idea that public safety has to come first.

The Chair: Mr. Ramsay, 10 minutes.

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

Thank you for coming and sharing this painful story with us.

The picture emerging as we travel is that we have to do more up front to keep young offenders out of the system. We've seen programs that are effective in that way, but even Mr. Lonar would agree that there is a percentage of offenders that treatment programs will not have any impact upon.

I see our approach to reforming the Young Offenders Act as a two-pronged one. First, we have to put more resources into preventative programs. Second, what are we going to do, if anything, to deal with that 5% to 8%, or whatever the percentage is, of young people who are going to be responsible for murdering between 40 and 42 people - according to statistics in that area - in the next 12 months? What can we do from a legislative point of view to protect society from that kind of occurrence?

We discuss all these topics about deterrent effects of longer sentences. Some people think there is no deterrence in longer sentences. What would have stopped this young man? What could we have passed into legislation that would have stopped this young man from doing what he did, if anything? If we couldn't have stopped him from doing what he did then, after the fact, what can we do to protect the public from him?

So those are the questions we wrestle with. Even though in three to five or six years he might be rehabilitated, is that a fair and just penalty for someone who has committed premeditated murder? That is the question I wrestle with. What is a fair and just penalty, not only for a young offender but also for an adult who deliberately and in a premeditated way takes an innocent life? Is it the 15 years that we're looking at through section 745? Is that reasonable? Or is it 25 years? Or, for adults, is it the return to capital punishment as a lot of people across the country are advocating?

.1230

Being so close to this and having the view brought on by the emotions that you experienced, what would you recommend to the committee along those lines? Of course, there's the question of rehabilitation, but there's also the question of a fair and just penalty to society. In other words, if the individual was rehabilitated the next day and all of our experts said there's no chance of that individual ever committing another murder like this, should he be released the next day?

Mr. Spears: I find it difficult that they would indeed be able to assure the Canadian public that this could be guaranteed. I don't for a minute think we should have institutions where people are locked in a dark room and brought out for an hour every day to beat them. I'm not saying that.

As I mentioned in my brief, I was very impressed with the facility at Waterville and the types of programs they have. Although it's a classroom setting all day, I think these people are very aware when night-time comes that they're in prison.

My concern, though, is that when you ask whether the three to five or six years is sufficient penalty, my answer would be a very strong no. If I may draw an analogy here, very often I read things where psychologists say that most of the people would not think about the possible repercussions of their crime before the fact. If I told you that I had a 10-year-old car and I was willing to sell it to you for $25,000, your answer is going to be no.

I say the same thing in this case. If we make the penalty strong enough, perhaps not everyone is going to think about it, but if 10 people are going to commit murder and one of them reconsiders because the price is too high, to me, saving one life out of the 10 makes it just to change that law. I think stronger penalties have to be there.

I'm not saying the judge in every case will use that penalty. This is why I say these sentences need to be open-ended. If in the case of my brother-in-law's murder the judge saw fit to give him three years, let that be the case. But let it also be on the books that if he feels that this fellow is really too far gone and we need to create some public safety, let him start off with a 15-year sentence and prove within the institution that he deserves to come back out.

I would like to make a personal comment. I don't wish to say something that would make the judge seem that he had overstepped his boundaries, but I remember the day that this young fellow was sentenced. The judge in the particular case looked at my sister...and this is where I came up with the comment that he, by his own words, basically told her that there was no way he could give out a sentence that would justify or make her feel any better. His comments to me really seemed almost an apology that his hands were tied to do what he felt was proper in that the penalty had to be greater but he had nowhere to go.

Mr. Ramsay: In cases in which there is no sign of remorse, that and other indicators, I suppose, would have to be present to come to the conclusion that this individual may still pose a threat to society after the five or six years. Would you be in favour of a reform to the act or to the legislation that would allow the authorities to keep a person, either young offender or adult, incarcerated if there is an indication that they might continue to represent a threat to the safety of society?

.1235

Mr. Spears: Very definitely. That is contained in one of those points, you'll recall, where I talked about a dangerous offender category for a young offender. That's where I think it is important.

At the Waterville institution I was very impressed with Mr. Lonar. I think these people who work with it every day...and based on the assessments they get from their team of psychologists, they would know. I really feel that people like that have to have more input into where the law is going. I really believe the dangerous offender category is very important.

Mr. Ramsay: I asked him. I didn't know that the individual who had committed this murder was there, but apparently he is. As I was going out the door, I asked him if he thought three years was sufficient for murder. He equivocated a little in his response, but he said that if we would put more resources at the front end and keep young people out of the system, he would be willing to see stiffer sentences for those very violent offences committed by such a small percentage of these young people. That was his opinion. This is a man who has been in that system for a number of years.

Mr. Spears: I can see that as a plan for down the road, but if we're saying put the money up front and create a situation where we're not breeding these types of offenders, we're looking at 10 or 15 years, are we not? This type of thing will continue until the people who are of that age group now have changed, a different group. I think we have to have something in place that protects people in the interim.

The Chair: I just want to make it clear in case there's any confusion that Bill C-37 did amend the penalty section of the Young Offenders Act. So the penalties for murder that were applicable three years ago are not applicable today.

Mr. Spears: I am aware of that, although my sister and I would both state that we feel they have to be stronger still.

The Chair: All right. I just wanted to clarify that.

Mr. Gallaway.

Mr. Gallaway (Sarnia - Lambton): Thank you, Mr. Spears, for coming here today. I know it's a difficult situation for you.

Do you live in this community? I'm talking about a little community -

Mr. Spears: No.

Mr. Gallaway: The doctor's letter refers to it as being a small, poor, and isolated community.

Mr. Spears: Yes, very much so. I understand there are 60 to 70 people in the whole community.

Mr. Gallaway: I assume everybody in the community knows....

Mr. Spears: Oh, definitely. They all know who the offender is. It creates a lot of fear within the community because they know that by 1999 he could be back in that community.

Mr. Gallaway: So this would be a case where knowing who the offender is does not in any way protect the public. It creates fear within the public.

Mr. Spears: Yes, but I think it's more important that.... Let's say it happened in a larger city area, and a person who committed murder moved into a condo in the unit next to me. I feel I have a right to know that so I can decide if I want to move elsewhere. That should be my choice.

Mr. Gallaway: I understand what you're saying.

This young offender has been described in Maclean's magazine as having shown absolutely no remorse whatsoever. The psychiatrist who is treating him at this facility has stated that his problems run much deeper than that, describing a number of conditions. What could have been done to prevent this horrendous crime? I'm talking about this very individual person who has apparently some very profound problems.

Mr. Spears: My understanding from everything I've read and things I've learned within the community, and I don't want to get into hearsay, but it's pretty obvious that there are very deep, emotional family problems.

.1240

I certainly agree, as we discussed earlier, with getting more of this into the school system, talking about social values. Mr. Lonar showed me some programs they have within their system, some part of which he felt should be used in the public school system. I really agree with that.

Further to that, I reiterate that stronger penalties might have made a difference. I'm not saying they would, but if he's the one in ten who would have thought about it, perhaps it could have.

Mr. Gallaway: Do you think a stronger penalty might have had some impact upon this child?

Mr. Spears: I believe that, yes.

Mr. Gallaway: You've made recommendation number 7 in your letter as abolition of under-age-12 exemption. You said that it promotes situations in which offenders coerce younger children into becoming involved in crime without fear of punishment. You're talking about children under the age of 12 being coerced into criminal activity, I assume.

Mr. Spears: Yes, but I'm not saying totally that. I think of the incident in England where the two young fellows killed the toddler. If someone is seven years old and commits a murder, it's very frightening to me that the most the police can do is go to the parents and say, hey, he shouldn't have done that. That's very frightening.

Mr. Gallaway: I just want to explore this for a minute. If I were to hold someone in your family hostage and as a result of that hostage-taking force you to rob a bank, would you not find it a strange situation if you were convicted of armed robbery or just plain robbery?

Mr. Spears: If I were convicted of the robbery based on the fact that you coerced me to do it?

Mr. Gallaway: Yes.

Mr. Spears: I would hope my defence would free me of that, but I honestly don't know. It's something I've never considered before.

Mr. Gallaway: Do you think children who are coerced - I'm talking about someone under the age of 12 now - who are coerced by people older than they are should suffer consequences as a result of coercion?

Mr. Spears: I'm saying that if we abolish those limitations.... Maybe ``coerced'' is not the proper term. Perhaps it's more that they act together. Perhaps the younger person is more willing, but they have the youngest person do the act because they know they won't be penalized as harshly. My concern is that if this part of the law remains in place, there is no punishment for those younger people regardless of the circumstances of why they commit their crime. I was using coercion as an example.

I've heard talk of it being dropped to ten years old, but does that not mean an 11-year-old is going to get a 9-year-old friend to commit his crime for him?

Mr. Gallaway: I live very close to the city of Detroit, which has large areas of great poverty. Recently there was a terrible situation where a 12- or 13-year-old burned down a home, apparently on purpose, in which several children died. But the fact of the matter was that the child was in the house without any parental supervision. Would you charge that child with murder?

Mr. Spears: Yes. May I state why I would do that?

Mr. Gallaway: Yes.

Mr. Spears: Again, I say not out of revenge or gaining only the punishment, but because of public safety. If we don't, what does he do the next time?

Mr. Gallaway: In this particular case the child was left in charge of these children, and apparently there was a certain terminal degree of resentment, but the parent in this case was off somewhere. What do you do to the parent in that case?

Mr. Spears: If it's based on neglect, which is obvious here, I think they should be charged along with the young offender.

Mr. Gallaway: In doing so, we're weaving into the criminal justice system a whole series of social problems. In the case I've recited it's an area of extreme poverty, with children living at levels of neglect that are unimaginable. It would probably be charitable to describe them as Third World conditions.

.1245

Under circumstances such as those in the city of Detroit, where there are seven million people in the urban area, do you think that locking up a 12-year-old who has burned down a home under horrendous conditions is going to serve as a deterrent to other 12-year-olds in those conditions? We're talking about millions of people there.

Mr. Spears: Not necessarily. What I'm saying is I would hope that a stronger sentence being known would make that young fellow consider his actions before the fact.

Mr. Gallaway: Do you think other children are reading newspapers to know that 12-year-olds are being sentenced?

Mr. Spears: When I talk to my own children, who are 11 and 9, I find astounding what they know at their age that I didn't know when I was that age.

I used to hear, as well, that ignorance of the law was no excuse. That was the term when I was a young fellow, and I would like to think it still applies.

Mr. Gallaway: So we're going to apply it to 10-year-olds?

Mr. Spears: I'm saying yes, for very violent crimes. If they commit murder, then we must.

Mr. Gallaway: I don't know if I got an answer to my question, though. In this case, punishment is a deterrent to young offenders? In other words, if someone is 11 or 12 years old, the fact that other 11- or 12-year-olds - I'm not talking about in proximity to them, but somewhere in this country - are being punished will be a deterrent to their becoming other young offenders?

Mr. Spears: As it becomes known to them, I'd say it could be. I say to you again that if it stops one in ten cases, then it's worth making the change.

Mr. Gallaway: The difficult situation we're trying to grapple with is that, at one level, if we could assume that the sentence was a deterrent to young offenders, then certain members of the committee might be inclined to agree with it. I don't presume to speak for the members of the committee. At the same time, I wonder how we draw that causation. How do we know that the sentencing will have the effect? How do you know that?

Mr. Spears: I'm not saying I can prove that in every case. I'm saying I have -

Mr. Gallaway: Can you tell me of any cases, then?

Mr. Spears: I'm saying that, by having the broader scope, as I suggested, for the judge to deal with it.... Let's not make so many generalities that we cut off the possibility of doling out the proper punishment when an extreme crime is committed.

Mr. Gallaway: Let's go back to this particular instance. I assume that this was a child who grew up in a house that could be described as dysfunctional - and I'm not certain I know what that word means. There were a lot of problems in the house.

Mr. Spears: I think that would apply.

The Chair: Mr. Gallaway, you've reached ten minutes.

Madame Venne, five minutes.

[Translation]

Mrs. Venne: I have only one question. Your recommendation no. 6 is as follows :

[English]

Consideration should be given to the possibility of jury trials. This would echo public opinion.

[Translation]

I would like to know what the benefit would be for a 13 year old, and for the community in general. I do not understand the point of that recommendation. Can you explain it to me?

[English]

Mr. Spears: As I touched on at one point in answering previous questions, I would really like to see something in the way of a referendum, although I don't see that this is coming. I think some sort of public opinion needs to be shown.

Studies I've read are stating that there is a great outcry for changes in these laws. I think that in many cases that's not being heard.

The Chair: If I can just add another point of information, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms provides for a jury trial for any offence for which you could be liable for more than five years, which does then create the right to a jury trial for young offenders in murder cases.

Mr. Spears: Now that it's changed to a greater degree.

The Chair: That's right.

Mr. Spears: Would that have to be petitioned for, though?

The Chair: In a case of murder, no.

Mr. Spears: Okay, it's automatic now.

.1250

The Chair: I'm sorry. I'm being corrected here by someone who knows better than me. They would have an option, but I won't be argumentative now. We could talk about that after perhaps, about what that would accomplish.

Ms Clancy, you have five minutes.

Ms Clancy (Halifax): Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Mr. Spears, let me begin by saying, both on my own behalf and on behalf of my constituents, how utterly appalled we were at the tragedy suffered by your sister and your family and yourself.

I have to say I have some concern. I don't wish to be argumentative but just to bring to your attention there has been in the history, if you will, of both policy and legislation in criminal law generally, a real caveat placed on permitting - with the greatest of respect - people who have been victimized to influence the actual legislative process too much. Now that's not to say that as citizens and as victims you don't have a right to say something. That's why we have victim impact statements and that's why you are here today.

I know you have said this is not out of revenge, and I'm not imputing that motive. But I am suggesting to you - and it may well be that even my question or my comment here is pointless, but I bring it up because this is something we all deal with as legislators - that we are legislating in a country of 30 million people for all young offenders who will come before us. So it is very difficult to react to even a class of offences because there may be other situations in which a wife is taken and murder is the charge, in which if you hamstring the discretion of the court too much you exacerbate a problem rather than help it.

Therefore, I understand that when I was out of the room - and I apologize but I had to do some other business outside - you said you weren't satisfied with the amendments, with the increase of sentence that came in the latest amendment. Could you tell me again, just very briefly, what you see as a finite sentence in this particular case - in your particular view with regard to murder.

Mr. Spears: Do you mean what would have been proper?

Ms Clancy: No, not in your own case. I don't think that's right. But tell us as subjectively as you can.

Mr. Spears: I really feel that when we're talking about murder, rape, very violent crimes, as I indicated in the suggestions, it has to be more open-ended. Let the judges decide. One point I talked about was that my sister, for her injuries because it happened in the same act -

Ms Clancy: I know. I understand what you're saying about the concurrency. I don't argue with you necessarily on that. I'm just helping to make your point there.

Mr. Spears: Okay, no, but I wanted to state there was....

Ms Clancy: I guess I'm asking you what you think the maximum should be. We're looking at 10 years right now for somebody under the age of 18. Ten years is a long time. I know that somebody's dead a long time too and somebody suffers a long time. But what would you see as a maximum?

Mr. Spears: When we have these types of crimes, as I said earlier - you may have been out of the room - with what I call adult crime, I think the penalty should be the same.

Ms Clancy: But we ought to have the option of transfer to adult court.

Mr. Spears: Only for certain ages, and this young fellow was 13 years old. He was about three weeks away from his - I know you shouldn't be talking about specifics, but this is the type of thing that people, like my sister, wind up with. We went to court. This young fellow was three weeks shy of his 14th birthday so it could have been petitioned to have him removed to adult court. I don't see that line of definition. To me, if it's murder, something has to be done.

Ms Clancy: All right. Thank you very much, Mr. Spears.

The Chair: That's about the end of that five-minute period.

.1255

Mr. Ramsay.

Mr. Ramsay: Madam Chair, I don't know if I have anything further to ask this witness.

Again, I'll say thank you for coming and thank you for the recommendations. We on the committee will look at the recommendations.

There are those who feel that a penalty serves no useful purpose. But I think we have to look at the safety of society. If, in this case, this young man, after serving his five or six years in open and closed custody, still represents a threat to society in the view of those who will be examining him, then what do we do?

Mr. Spears: I think we need that dangerous offender category so that the people who deal with it every day and who know this guy should not be back out on the street can make the decision to keep him there.

Mr. Ramsay: I'll take a little bit more of my time than I thought.

We now have a system of justice where on some offences, not very serious violent offences but some offences, after the individual serves two-thirds of his sentence the doors simply open automatically and he's free. Now, the prime suspect in the murder of Melanie Carpenter, Mr. Auger, was one of those individuals.

So we have a system that is not looking at the potential danger these people represent to society, at least in the adult sphere. People are dying as a result of it. We're releasing them early, and people are dying as a result of it.

Mr. Spears: If I may, you're talking about someone who might pose a threat. I'm talking about the types of people who we know have already committed murder. I'd like to draw that distinction.

Mr. Ramsay: It is a distinction, and it's all the more reason why we must consider amendments to the law that will allow for consideration of the authorities to protect society where that consideration is now not there. This is not based in law.

That's just a comment I made in view of the task we have before us, drafting a report that will cover the gamut of the concerns we've heard and what I call a sense of responsibility to the duties that have been placed upon us.

I want to thank you again for appearing.

Mr. Spears: I understand that these issues are not easy for you. I know that. Nothing is cut and dried. But I really feel that if we get into situations in which the law is so closed that we're looking at people being incarcerated for short periods of time...and when the time comes to release them there is no control over that.

Mr. Ramsay: So really, you're recommending to us that we take a look at giving the courts greater leeway in sentencing.

Mr. Spears: Yes.

Mr. Ramsay: In other words, not placing a limit at either the bottom end or the top.

Mr. Spears: Well, I wouldn't say there shouldn't be a limit. I would certainly say it should be greater, as I've indicated. Maybe 25 years is a figure, I don't know.

Mr. Ramsay: Would you agree with the possibility, at a certain period of the 25 years, that this 13-year-old would be looked at, and if rehabilitation had taken place perhaps after 10 or 12 years, would be eligible for parole?

Mr. Spears: Yes, I certainly would. But I would like to indicate one other thing. I've attended a probation hearing where.... Again, I know I'm not supposed to talk in specifics, but one thing I'd like to mention is that for for this fellow, after one year the defence lawyer argued that he was doing very well in his education and that this should be one consideration for letting him back out, that he was very studious.

From some of the things we see, I know the fellows in that institution have more one-on-one time with their teachers than my children do.

Perhaps that is one of the forces behind this fellow's doing so well. Thankfully, the judge's words were that if he's doing so well there, that's just where we should leave him.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Ramsay.

Thank you very much for assisting us with your and your sister's point of view. You're a very articulate advocate for her point of view, and we're grateful you appeared.

.1300

One of the things the committee is attempting to do as we review the Young Offenders Act is to hear from victims and victims' rights groups. Sometimes it's tough to hear, but it's even tougher, I know, to appear sometimes.

Mr. Spears: Well, I think it's very important.

The Chair: I agree. We appreciate the difficulty you had with this and we appreciate the fact that you would spend this time with us. We will of course consider your recommendations very seriously.

Mr. Spears: When I mentioned the point about Reta wanting to appear before you, when further hearings are held in Ottawa or wherever, I really feel she would be very willing to pay her own way to be there.

The Chair: If she were to come, that would not be necessary. I see that in her letter. That is something we will consider. I'm sure you'll give her our very best regards.

Mr. Spears: Thank you.

The Chair: We'll take a short break.

.1301

.1306

The Chair: All right. We're back. I would like to welcome from the Atlantic Coordinating Committee on Crime Prevention and Community Safety, Herb Chapman, chair; Diane Barnes, from Prince Edward Island and whom we met earlier; Cal Cole, from Newfoundland; and Lou McGinn, from Correctional Service Canada in New Brunswick.

Thank you for coming, and welcome. We have about an hour. You've been in, so you've seen that if you prefer we will hear your brief first and then ask our questions after.

Mr. Herb Chapman (Chair, Atlantic Coordinating Committee on Crime Prevention and Community Safety): I'm going to be doing most of the brief, and then there will be some additional comments by Diane and Lou.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and committee members. We are here representing the Atlantic Coordinating Committee on Crime Prevention and Community Safety. We are pleased to have an opportunity to talk about the uniqueness of our committee and the innovative way in which we address crime concerns in Atlantic Canada.

We've been in existence as an entity for over 10 years and are composed of both government and non-government representatives of the four Atlantic provinces and representatives from Correctional Service Canada, Solicitor General of Canada, and the National Crime Prevention Council Secretariat.

It's important to note that our submission does not necessarily reflect the views of any one of the departments or organizations that we represent.

We sent ahead some months ago copies of our framework document, which outlines our plans for the future. This document is the result of a strategic planning process we did two years ago and establishes some concrete goals for us as a committee.

Prior to the production of this paper, our committee was totally committed to promoting crime prevention principles and strategies throughout the region. We have encouraged the development of crime prevention societies or associations at the provincial level and, through those provincial bodies, crime prevention associations at the community level.

We believe strongly that crime is a community problem and requires a community response. The promotion of crime prevention and community safety initiatives has been accomplished through our annual Atlantic crime prevention conferences held each spring. This year being our 10th, we have expanded our regional conference into a national conference, focusing on communities and what makes them strong and safe for people to live, work and play in. For your information, we have also brought copies of our brochure for our national crime prevention conference.

The Chair: I have to tell you that we have more brochures from Prince Edward Island. These people are so busy.

Mr. Chapman: We're hoping that will attract some of you to our conference.

We've examined the mandate of your committee and will relate specifically to two issues under the first category, which is youth crime. Those issues would be youth crime prevention measures and deterrents to youth crime. We will also relate to one issue under the second category, youth justice system, and that is the use of court diversion or alternative measures schemes.

Although we, as a committee, have focused on many issues related to crime prevention and community safety, we have established as our focus crime prevention through social development, which places our emphasis on early intervention and youth justice issues.

Young people come in conflict with the law for a variety of reasons, and the response to youth crime has to be comprehensive. Legislation and the response of the criminal justice system cannot resolve these issues in isolation. There must be cooperation with communities as a whole, as well as with the communities that tend to represent the various interest groups. We all have a part to play. In some measure we all must share responsibility for the level of crime in society and for creating safer communities for its citizens.

.1310

We all have a part to play in creating safer communities. We believe communities that embrace all the members of that community and make a place for those members are safer than communities that isolate and marginalize some of their citizens.

The Atlantic Coordinating Committee on Crime Prevention and Community Safety, working in partnership with the provinces and communities in Atlantic Canada, encourages them to promote changes that challenge youth to be part of the solution to youth crime. We do this by highlighting the initiatives at our annual conferences and by providing resources to meet the needs of youth.

The first step is the establishment of a resource centre that will make material available to meet the needs of youth. Not only do we liaise with our provincial partners, we also liaise with the National Crime Prevention Council and are happy to have as ad hoc members of our committee the four Atlantic representatives on the National Crime Prevention Council.

We support their initiatives on early intervention in youth justice initiatives, part of which is the exploration of alternatives to the justice system such as alternative measures, family group conferencing, and peer counselling education approaches. We believe that young people have great insight into their own issues and can be partners with us in creating safer communities.

There are some excellent examples of this in our region, wherein youth under adult leadership and facilitation have developed creative approaches in making their communities safer.

In Newfoundland there are the youth justice committees, where community members work with youth who come in conflict with the law, and the anti-vandalism program under the leadership of a young person. In New Brunswick, the anti-violence, anti-racism initiative under the leadership of a member of the local RCMP has over 12 youths involved in leadership in the community.

In Prince Edward Island the alternative community residential program effectively involves the community in administering youth justice. In Nova Scotia we have the all saints program in Yarmouth, in which more than 50 youths provide safety and security for seniors, as well as provide perimeter security to public buildings in the town on Hallowe'en night, and the community safety audit is conducted by youths in the community of Dartmouth.

Details of these youth initiatives can be provided on request. This is by no means an exhaustive list, but they are examples of youth responding in a positive and proactive way to a threat to the peace and the security of their communities. They have the energy and the creativity, but we need to show them that we believe they have gifts to share.

We believe these programs were inspired and encouraged to some degree by the work of our committee, mainly through our annual conference. Police and citizens gathered together to talk and listen to one another, and then went back to their respective communities and made it happen.

We believe that our committee is unique in Canada from a number of standpoints. First, we have been in continuous existence for more than 10 years, and although our membership has grown and individual representatives have changed, we have maintained our focus and our vision.

Second, we are unique because of the diversity of the partnerships, reflecting both provincial and federal perspectives, as well as community input and our liaison with the National Crime Prevention Council.

Third, the high level of motivation on the part of all of our members to work together and continually find consensus on the vital issues that concern us as a society is remarkable.

Fourth, we have grown from facilitating nine regional workshops, which have impacted on many communities throughout the region, into a national workshop on a common theme of strengthening communities. We've have been able to draw together people from across this country through our common vision that communities that have a spirit to survive and truly serve all of their members are safer communities. This is well expressed in the theme of our 10th annual conference, ``Community Spirit Equals Community Safety''.

Some remarkable activities have emerged from the conferences over the years. We have learned a great deal from one another, and successful initiatives that have been developed in one province or region have been passed on to others. At one of our early conferences in the late 1980s, the Newfoundland Crime Prevention Association did a workshop. As a result a group from Antigonish, Nova Scotia, returned to their community and started a citizens group. This resulted in other communities in Nova Scotia following their lead.

At the 1994 conference a large group of participants from various communities in New Brunswick were motivated to begin their own provincial crime prevention association. We believe this educational approach to motivating communities is an effective way to create communities that care.

.1315

I'm going to ask Diane to make a few comments.

Ms Diane Barnes (Member, Atlantic Coordinating Committee on Crime Prevention and Community Safety): Good afternoon. I'd like to highlight a recent initiative of ours, which Herb referred to. It is another example of the way we are working with communities to expand the responsibility of creating safer communities beyond the justice system.

The Atlantic Coordinating Committee plays various roles as advisers to government, liaison with national counsel, and so forth. Perhaps one of the most valuable roles we can play, however, is in terms of issues related to using youth justice in our role as a resource and consultation group in matters of crime prevention, safer communities, and community-based justice for the region.

In terms of this, one of our committee's goals has been to establish a reference and resource centre. We're in the middle of establishing such a centre in Prince Edward Island right now - the Atlantic Crime Prevention Headquarters.

The Community Legal Information Association of Prince Edward Island Inc., which is a partner of the Atlantic Coordinating Committee, was fortunate enough to acquire the crime prevention and community safety collection of the former regional office of the Solicitor General of Canada. The Community Legal Information Association will be operating this centre with the support of the Province of Prince Edward Island, in cooperation with the Atlantic Coordinating Committee. This serves to further demonstrate our commitment to a partnership between government and community in Atlantic Canada.

The aim in developing the headquarters is to establish a reference and resource centre that makes information on crime prevention, community safety, and related issues available in an accessible and user-friendly manner. Crime prevention associations, advocacy groups, and members of the public need the best possible information about what they can do to make their communities safer and about what's going on in the region.

Headquarters will be able to provide that. Eventually we hope to have at least one satellite office in each of the Atlantic provinces, although they'd all be connected with a consistent database.

Atlantic Crime Prevention Headquarters will serve to promote a climate of cooperation and joint planning between the various levels of government and communities. In addition to information services, it will offer consultative services to community groups, volunteer organizations, and other provincial departments on such matters as project development, community development, organizational change, and setting objectives.

In summary, the headquarters is designed to support people working together to prevent crime and insure safer communities. It supports and promotes the ideas of communities working with young people and families to solve the problems that often lead to their involvement in the youth justice system.

The Atlantic Coordinating Committee needs continued support from all levels of government. From a provincial level, we're grateful for the support from the federal government. They continue to be supportive and work with us. We depend on this type of leadership and support to sustain and help increase the growing momentum of community involvement in justice issues in Atlantic Canada.

The Chair: Lou.

Mr. Lou McGinn (Member, Atlantic Coordinating Committee on Crime Prevention and Community Safety): Good afternoon, Madam Chair and committee members. I represent Correctional Service Canada on the coordinating committee.

Correctional Service Canada supports the notion of crime prevention and actively participates in a number of initiatives that are helping to build safer communities for our youths in the Atlantic region. For the past six years my department has participated in the planning, funding, and delicate representation at these annual Atlantic crime prevention conferences held in Prince Edward Island. Youth have always played an active role through their participation in these conferences.

I would like again to remind you that our coordinating committee is unique in Canada. As stated earlier, it does include the four provincial representatives on Canada's first national crime prevention council. It has one representative from each of our four provincial crime prevention associations, together with a small representation of federal and provincial bureaucrats who serve in an advisory capacity. Both the secretariat to the National Crime Prevention Council and Correctional Service Canada provide a modest amount of funding to assist the coordinating committee in being able to meet on a quarterly basis.

.1320

At a recent international conference for crime prevention practitioners hosted by Canada and held in Vancouver earlier this month, a delegate from South Africa reminded the audience of the African proverb that says ``it takes an entire village to raise a child''. In you deliberations across the country on matters affecting youth, I would ask that you remind Canadians that it takes an entire village to raise the child. All levels of government need to form partnerships to encourage our communities to accept their responsibility for raising their children.

I would also tell you as our federal elected representatives that now is the time for our federal government to identify one or more departments to take that lead role in crime prevention. Youth and justice is all about prevention, including crime prevention.

I would challenge you by suggesting that as well-intentioned politicians, you frequently misread the community's concern for its youth. Are you sure the committee wants you to have serious and heinous crimes of violence tried in adult court, or is the community saying it takes an entire village to raise the child, help us to better understand and accept our responsibility as members of the community?

Thank you.

Mr. Cal Cole (Member, Atlantic Coordinating Committee on Crime Prevention and Community Safety): Madam Chairman, I don't have a brief, but I think we should look at some of the positives in the Young Offenders Act. I know there are concerns about the penalties and so on, as we heard from the previous speaker, but I think there are some good things that we need to focus on. I am specifically referring to the alternative measures program.

In the province of Newfoundland we have what I think is an effective program, with programs conducted in approximately 50 areas. I believe these alternative measures programs are effective, although sometimes it's difficult to measure their effectiveness. I think there's a need to focus on that area as well as on the problems of penalties and incarceration of youth and so on.

The Chair: All right. We have quite a bit of time so we'll start with 10-minute rounds.

Mr. Ramsay.

Mr. Ramsay: Don't I get 20 minutes because Madam Venne left?

The Chair: No, you don't.

Ms Clancy: Not unless you join the Bloc.

Mr. Ramsay: Strike that from the record.

I want to thank you for coming and for your concern in this particular area. I want you to focus upon the goals and objectives of the committee for a moment. I think you have done that, but we're being asked to amend or enact laws that will tell the courts and the police what to do and limit or add to their existing powers.

When you speak about the government taking a lead role in crime prevention, are you talking about after the fact or before the fact?

Mr. McGinn: I'm talking primarily before the fact. Prevention.

Mr. Ramsay: What recommendations do you have to the committee with regard to greater resources in this area? There's no doubt that the members of the committee agree with you, and I don't think there are many in Parliament who wouldn't agree with you that we have to start reducing the number of young people.... We'll never eliminate it entirely, but we have to start reducing it.

.1325

What are some of the programs you would suggest the government start turning their resources to before the fact; in other words, at what we call the ``front end'' of the system?

Mr. McGinn: I guess one of the first programs that comes to my mind is diversion. When an offender has committed an offence, prior to sending that case to court...if there is a process that would allow that matter to divert, to allow the community to participate in a solution that is acceptable to the victim, to the community and to the accused.

Mr. Ramsay: That is what I would refer to as ``after the fact''. We've had a look at programs where the people involved in the programs have identified the link between illiteracy and young offenders entering the justice system. What they're saying is that if we had the means to take these young people out of the educational system, young people who can't keep up, who are having trouble and who are simply acting out and becoming unruly.... They have identified those people as at least a certain percentage of the people who move into crime.

Mr. McGinn: Yes.

Mr. Ramsay: Okay. That's what I'm talking about. I keep repeating this because I was so impressed with the program we saw at the Sydney Mines facility. They have taken young people who have fallen out of the educational system but not gotten into difficulty with crime - they simply quit going to school - and and have brought them into a system. They have designed an educational program around their specific level and needs.

They've had enormous, just remarkable results. Some of the testimony we've heard from those young people.... One was writing poetry. She said she never thought she would be doing that kind of thing. Others reiterated similar results and changes that occurred in their lives. For the first time there was a teacher who would listen to them and understand them and love them, showing the care and concern they weren't getting in the other educational system and perhaps weren't getting at home. Those are the kinds of programs I would be very willing to support the financing of.

Those are the kinds of things I'm talking about. You said to take a lead role in crime prevention. That's what I'm talking about. Yes, we have to deal with them after they get into the system, deal with that great percentage, over 90%, for whom rehabilitative programs will work.

Then, of course, we have the very small percentage of very violent offenders, as Mr. Spears was talking to us about, where we have to look at some other means. But in terms of prevention, I would like your comments on what programs the resources should be directed to. We're spending $10 billion at the back end of the justice system. I don't consider the front end to be part of the justice system. I would like to see it separate from the justice system, such as an emphasis on educational programs and some of these other programs.

I'm asking you for your ideas on where we could set up these kinds of programs to keep the kids from ever entering the system.

Mr. McGinn: I have just one brief comment. I certainly agree with you. I've spent the last 30 years working with federal offenders. That's why, in my last couple of years, I joined every group I can think of, to help move the system more to the front end, to address the front end. I certainly support what you're saying.

I would say in general, programs must be kept community based, community focused. We have to help the public to understand, to accept responsibility again.

.1330

I'm sure Herb can refer to some specific programs in that area.

Mr. Chapman: One of the ones that we know has been quite successful is the Moncton headstart program. The whole headstart program, which deals with prenatal to six.... For instance, at our conference we're having a workshop on fetal alcohol syndrome. We know some of the problems children have can start before birth because of the behaviour of the mom, or because of the eating habits and so on. So we believe some interventions can take place at that particular level.

We had a consultation the other day on the early childhood intervention initiative of the National Crime Prevention Council. There were some interesting exchanges in relation to the tendency to blame parents for the children's problems. The fact is, we tend often not to support parents in whatever attempts they make at parenting. There needs to be a lot more support for parents in the attempts they're making to bring up their children and socialize them properly.

I'm familiar with the Sydney Mines program we were just talking about. There are also other education programs throughout the province of Nova Scotia, where they're trying to take youths who don't seem to be doing well in school and giving them an individual learning program so that they can address some of the needs that will allow them to learn rather than putting them in a classroom and expecting them to relate to other kids as though they had a normal upbringing. So an awful lot of initiatives are happening, and those things need to be supported.

One of the joyful things that's happening is that people are beginning to form partnerships. I'm with justice, and I'm on a lot of these committees with education and social services and health. We're starting to see that this is not just a problem of one particular area; it's a problem that impacts on everyone. Not only do we involve different partners in government, but we also realize that if we get the community mobilized, we're stopping this whole notion that we can do for them and beginning to do with them. Even the mother who is having a really difficult time with parenting has to understand that she has some potential and that we can work with her. As long as we make people dependent and so on....

I think we have to turn this whole process around and realize that even the potential delinquent child has a gift to offer if we can just motivate them. When we talked about working with youth and making them part of the solution instead of part of the problem, that's what we're trying to get at.

In the Yarmouth program, where the law teacher began working with these kids to protect the seniors, some of those kids were pre-delinquent. They were on the verge of moving into delinquent-type behaviour. Yet when they found out they could actually satisfy some of their needs by helping people, it turned them around. That's very helpful. We're not talking about psychopaths and sociopaths, we're talking about that middle range of kids who can be turned either way. I support programs that help those people as well.

Mr. Cole: I think the other side of it, too, is that the police play a very important role in this whole thing. I can speak from the RCMP perspective that they have been making great strides over the years, but we still have a lot of people coming out of training who have the reactive attitude toward crime. There are still a lot who are not on-line in the proactive area.

I think the whole concept of community policing has to be called part of the training process for police agencies, regardless of whether it's the RCMP or municipal police or provincial police. We have to be in partnership with each other. Herb made reference to all the other communities within our communities. The police too are a community within there. They have to continue striving to become on-line with the proactive aspect of crime prevention and working with us and working with youth.

.1335

The Chair: Thank you. We'll go to Ms Clancy.

Ms Clancy: I may have misunderstood you, and I hope I did, but I get a little concerned about any sentence that begins with the word ``politicians'' as if we were all cut from the same loaf, which we are not.

I realize that you and your colleagues came in time to hear Mr. Spears' presentation. I might also make the note that I'm not a permanent member of this committee; I'm just visiting, as it's in my riding. But I got the impression that you felt the mandate or the committee as a whole was looking at the ``throwing the baby out with the bathwater'' aspect of young offenders.

I want to make it very clear to you that while I can't speak for all members of the committee, for many of us, particularly on the government side, the ideas that your group is putting forward and that were put forward by other groups quite eloquently here today - most notably Youth Alternative Society, Nova Scotia Legal Aid, and various and sundry others - on the idea of prevention and not over-incarceration and not lowering the age limits, etc., are ideas that I certainly adhere to and I suspect a number of my colleagues do.

So with the greatest of respect and affection, I would ask you to note that and perhaps correct me if I was wrong in my interpretation of what you were saying a minute ago.

Mr. McGinn: I certainly did not intend to leave any negative impression whatsoever. In fact, I have the greatest respect for the federal government in recent years. I think of the example of family violence.

Ms Clancy: But what was the comment? I didn't understand the comment when you said ``you've misread''. That was the comment. You said, ``you politicians have seriously misread''. Don't look at me; I didn't misread anybody.

Mr. Gallaway: I think it was that politicians have seriously misread....

Mr. McGinn: You frequently misread the community's concern for the youth.

Ms Clancy: All right, where have we misread that? What actions lead you to make that statement?

Mr. McGinn: The media in general.

Ms Clancy: No, stop. Stop, Mr. McGinn. I'm not the media. I'm a politician. I'm a member of Parliament.

Mr. McGinn: I realize that. What I had in mind is that our politicians have to be sensitive to the concerns that are expressed by the community to them, and we'll always help them in forming a position on whatever the matter is. My suggestion is that politicians in general, I believe, misread the community's concern by perhaps not going beyond to see the ``why'' and the ``how come''.

Ms Clancy: Stop there for one minute before you get to your example. All right, give me your example.

Mr. McGinn: Well, an example would be that frequently advocate groups that are promoting lengthier sentences for youth who have committed violent crimes...the community in general has high expectations that more and more be incarcerated. I use the African proverb to remind ourselves what the community is really asking. Are they really asking that we incarcerate for longer periods of time, or is the community asking for help in understanding that we have responsibilities?

Ms Clancy: You're obviously referring to the amendments that extended the sentencing that came through recently. I supported those amendments. I still do. I don't support the lowering of the age, which I suspect is one of the reasons most of my colleagues in my party didn't, and that's why the age wasn't lowered. But if we made a mistake in that - and I'm not admitting that we did - may I suggest to you that your language is perhaps equally mistaken in suggesting that we don't listen and don't consult.

Perhaps part of the exercise we're going through here, which is very exhaustive and exhausting, particularly for the permanent members of the committee who are travelling nationwide, is just to hear what we are hearing from you and from others. To be a legislator - and I don't want to go into a lecture school mode, although I can tell I already am - is to try to strike a balance and to try to find what a wonderful man named Pierre Trudeau used to call the ``radical middle'' of the Canadian spectrum. I just wanted to make very clear that even when we listen as hard as many of us do, we can sometimes still make mistakes, which I'm sure you can too.

.1340

Mr. McGinn: Absolutely. I accept your comment.

Ms Clancy: Good. Thank you, Madam Chair.

The Chair: Mr. Wells.

Mr. Wells (South Shore): I have just a few comments. I'm sorry I had to miss part of your presentation - the middle part. Some of it may have already been covered. I did, however, read your brief.

My questions are with the act itself. Most of the comments I've heard dealt with prevention. I think we all agree that's the key to making the whole system work. But as far as the act itself is concerned, do any of you see any particular changes that should be made to the Young Offenders Act?

Mr. Cole: It seems as though all responsibility for what the kid does is placed with him or her and all decision-making is made by that young person, giving little opportunity - no, I guess at home the opportunity is there. All the responsibility has been taken away from the parent. Personally I believe that if I have a 13-year-old child, I should have a legal right...maybe you're going to say that I do have a legal right as a parent. But the decision to be made in relation to that kid is that kid's responsibility, as I understand it.

If a child is given the choice of going, for instance, to court or into the alternative measures program, it's the child who makes that decision and not me as a parent. I think as a parent -

Mr. Wells: I think the way the act works, the parent has to be advised at all steps along the way.

Mr. Cole: Yes, he has to be advised, but the decision as to where that child is going to go in terms of dealing with the issue is totally in the hands of the young offender.

Mr. Wells: So what change would you want to see made to the act?

Mr. Cole: I'm not sure what the change would be, but I certainly would like the parent to have a greater role to play at the lower age level of the Young Offenders Act.

Mr. Wells: Are you advocating holding the parent responsible either civilly or criminally for the actions of the child? Would you go that far?

Mr. Cole: No, I don't think I'd go that far.

Mr. Wells: So where's the in-between - holding the parent responsible civilly or criminally?

Mr. Cole: I'm not sure if there is an in-between, but right now the parent doesn't have any legal say in whether or not that child goes to court or, for example, goes into the alternative measures program.

Mr. Wells: Is that right? Is that a correct legal interpretation?

The Chair: I don't think it is.

Mr. Wells: I'm not sure it is.

The Chair: I may be of some assistance.

Mr. Wells: I was hoping you might.

The Chair: As a former prosecutor under this act, parents are notified. My experience, at least in Essex County in Ontario and in other jurisdictions where I prosecuted, was that if the family showed an interest, the family was always involved in the disposition. If it was alternative measures, the parent was always involved. The greater problem is where the parent, the guardian, or whoever doesn't want to be involved.

Mr. Cole: I think it's also true, though, that if a child is here and his parent is there, the decision as to which group the child goes is to be made by the child himself.

The Chair: Again, it's my experience, which is fairly extensive in Ontario, that if the parents appear, if the parents respond to the notices they're given - and they must be given notice - and if they want to participate, they're not stopped from participating. Ultimately it's not the child who decides, it's the judge who decides. The child has very little say in what's going to happen to him if he's found guilty. Obviously, if he or she is found not guilty, there's not going to be a disposition.

.1345

Mr. Wells: If it doesn't reach the judge and it's just dealt with under a youth alternative to the Crown, I would again in my limited experience have the parent involved if the parent wants to be involved. I guess that's the key. What do you do when the parent doesn't care? That's where, of course, many of the problems are. Not all of them, as we found out...we also had some very compelling comments from the parents of some of these kids in P.E.I., which is a real eye-opener I think for a lot of people when you see it from different angles, from very good parents with kids who just get in with the wrong group and things happen.

Those comments are well taken, but as far as the act itself is concerned, if anyone has any suggestions or any concerns...because we have some people saying that the act is the problem. Most people acknowledge the act is not the problem, it's outside the act. I'm just trying to zero in now on the legislation itself.

Mr. Chapman: I worked with alternative measures for a quite a while, and I know that the act reads that the police officer shall, where appropriate, refer the person to alternative measures. At least when I was working we didn't get that many referrals. I know part of this is training the police and getting them to look at a non-court approach to some of these issues.

What happens is a lot of times the ``good'' kids, the ones who are cooperative and polite, end up with alternative measures. Some of the ones who are not socialized to be polite don't end up in alternative measures. I wondered if the act could be strengthened so that there was more emphasis on looking at alternative measures as a real option.

Mr. Wells: We should have had you here this morning when we had the alternative measures, because that wasn't the message we had from the alternative group.

Mr. Chapman: Were they saying too many were referred to alternative measures?

Mr. Wells: No, it wasn't a matter of not enough or not too many. They didn't ask whether they could handle more. They certainly seemed to think they had pretty good success with the people who were referred to them. Whether there was a whole group of others that could have been and weren't....

Mr. Chapman: I was with the probation service when we were doing the alternative measures, and actually we had good success. But the fact is that when you looked at who was coming to alternative measures, it was the good, middle class.

Mr. Wells: It's generally the lesser crimes, the lesser offences. Certainly they get some of the more....

Mr. Chapman: But if a kid is obnoxious, shoplifts a two-dollar item, he doesn't get referred to alternative measures. That's basically it.

The Chair: We're just way over our time here, but if I could just suggest that it may also vary by jurisdiction. So your experience in Nova Scotia when you were working in the field may be very different from someone else's.

Mr. Ramsay.

Mr. Ramsay: I'd like to follow up on Mr. Wells' initiative.

Under the old Juvenile Delinquents Act, the police and the court system had authority to deal with the criminal behaviour of any child as young as seven or eight. Of course, that was changed in 1984.

I was a police officer for 14 years, and we - myself and my colleagues - used to keep more of the young people out of the system. We did because we knew that it wouldn't do them any good, but we had the tools to be very effective, I thought. First of all, we had the authority to pick up the young person who was under 12 who was joyriding in a stolen car. We had the clout of the system to make them an offer they couldn't refuse. We would say, look, we'll have to talk to your parents and you'll have to repair the damage, or you'll have to satisfy the victim. If we could settle it between the offender and the victim, and the offender's family and the victim's family, then what's the purpose of taking it to court?

We used to resolve those kinds of problems in an informal way. We can't do that any more, and I think, Mr. Cole, when you talk about the families having more authority, the families and parents were always brought into it. Even if it went into juvenile court, the parents had to appear, the guardian had to appear. Always, in my experience, if the judge could leave the matter in the hands of the parents, if the judge was convinced the parents were responsible - and yes, some person did something that was wrong - he would leave it in the hands of the parents.

.1350

So when we advocate the lowering of the age - and I advocate only to 10 - that's what we're talking about, not taking the 10-year-olds into court, no. But what do we do when the 10-year-old is joyriding? The police stop him doing 100 miles an hour. After a wild chase they stop him. What do they do? How do they protect society? By what legislative authority do we protect society in those cases? Now, they're rare but they're there.

This is what I'd ask you about that. I'd ask you what would be wrong with not going right back to that system completely but lowering the age where the police would have authority to take that young person, take him back to his parents, perhaps refer him to an alternative measures program? What would be wrong with that, in your eyes?

Ms Barnes: Don't the police have the mandate now to refer that child to the social services department?

Mr. Ramsay: Yes, but under the Young Offenders Act, do they even have the right to pick him up and take him home?

Ms Barnes: That's my understanding. I was under the impression they would refer him to the social services department, which would then have some sort of deterrent mechanism built into that.

Mr. Ramsay: Of course, I wasn't around when the Young Offenders Act came in, but the front-line police officers I've talked to are very concerned about the rights of the child now. If they pick a child up, they have to be very careful they don't violate the rights. So that limits the options they have to act in the best interests of the child.

I think there are some offences that maybe should be handled formally. But for the vast majority of those young kids, if the system would allow the informal handling, it would be done that way. Alternative measures open the door to that kind of thing.

I don't see anything wrong in the name of the safety of society in reducing the age to 10. I don't think we'd see any more kids in the formal system. But it would give the authorities greater tools to protect society as well as the children.

I offer this in this area of disclosure of their names. Who's interested in disclosing the name of someone who has broken a window or has swiped his neighbour's bike or whatever? But in the case of dangerous offenders, in the drug trafficking, is it not in the best interests of society to know who is crying out for help, who they should be protecting their children from associating with?

The grandmother of Sylvain Leduc pointed out that the adults who murdered her grandson used teenagers to go and get the grandson and the two girls and bring them back into their presence.

Is there anything wrong in those serious offences, the violent offences against people, in revealing the names? I know we have to balance the rehabilitative possibility of not doing that against the protection of society. But too often I hear people, and with the greatest respect people like yourselves, who are opting for the protection or the rehabilitative aspect, which is honourable. But I look at the safety of society and try to balance the two.

.1355

I would like to see judges have the right to say that in this case they will waive the disclosure prohibition because they think it is in the best interests of the community that this be done. Yes, the child has to work with that label or stigma or whatever, but that's there anyway, inside at least, and with the group that knows about it.

When we look at the sentencing circles where the whole community gets together, to a certain degree they fly in the face of the disclosure prohibition. The whole community is brought in and the identity of the victim and the offender and everyone is involved.

The Chair: Mr. Ramsay, I would like to give the other side an opportunity.

Mr. Gallaway.

Mr. Gallaway: Mr. Chapman, you made a statement that marginalization of citizens does not make safer communities. In light of that philosophy, I want to ask you about something Mr. Ramsay has raised, which is advertising the names of young offenders. Is that consistent with your philosophy with respect to marginalization?

Mr. Chapman: I'm still thinking of what I might have said to Mr. Ramsay if I'd had a chance to work out my thoughts.

One of the things that in my experience has caused people to do antisocial things is if they don't feel they can be a creative part of what's happening. If they can't get their needs satisfied that way, then they tend to satisfy their needs in other ways. So if you tend to be isolated or marginalized from a community....

One of the problems is that we're starting to focus on reintegration of offenders, believing that if a community sends an offender off for correction, when that correction is complete, a community has a responsibility to take that citizen back, or some community does. Otherwise those people get marginalized. Where do they live? There is the planet Mars, but they have to live in some community somewhere. We're looking at what some communities do to help reintegrate offenders.

The reintegration of offenders is part of it, but we're also talking about things like racism. We're talking about things like how we deal with the disabled, how we deal with people who are different in any way. The more we marginalize people and make them feel not a part of it, they often will react against that in either some violent way -

Mr. Gallaway: In terms of what your groups have considered, do you see the inclusion of children, say, 10 years of age, in the criminal justice system as the appropriate way to address a problem? Or do you see it being addressed within the social safety network of this country, the social system?

Mr. Chapman: I believe that we need to strengthen the social legislation so that more effective responses can be obtained at that time.

One of the things going through my mind is that if we lower it to 10 and an 8-year-old does something, do we lower it to 8? And then if it's a 6-year-old, do we lower it to 6? Do we have to point at some age where we say that below this age, a person cannot form criminal intent? We know that children are fairly easily led at certain ages. If somebody who is 18 gets some 10-year-olds to do something, does the responsibility rest with them or does it rest with the person who is using them? Certainly they need some kind of correction.

Somebody told a story the other day at this other hearing about a child in grade two who was a bad child. When he went to school the teacher used to have this ``bad box'' in the corner, and when he misbehaved he was sent to the bad box. He got to the point where as soon as he got to school, he jumped in the bad box. Now he's in Dorchester, in the ultimate bad box.

If you teach kids at a really early age that they're bad, the ultimate badness is when you go to court. It's the Young Offenders Act, 10 years old - hey, you're a criminal. We can say all the caveats we have about the Young Offenders Act, but still that's the way we say that you're very bad according to society.

That's what concerns me about lowering the age. It's the whole socialization process. You put them with other bad people. The whole sense of putting all the bad people together in one place is absolutely ridiculous, and that's what you do in penitentiaries. We put all the bad people in one place and they learn from each other. That doesn't make any sense at all. If we're going to do that at an earlier age, that makes even less sense to me.

.1400

Mr. Gallaway: One final question. You represent crime prevention groups in the Maritimes...and I should include Newfoundland in that. I'm sorry, I'm only from Ontario.

Do communities that have crime prevention groups see a decrease in young offender crime?

Mr. Chapman: We're not very good at monitoring that.

Mr. Gallaway: Is there any evidence, then, amongst the four of you?

Mr. Cole: I'm not sure it's due to crime prevention or alternative measures or whatever, but I've been told recently that the population in some of our youth centres is decreasing. I don't know who wants to take responsibility for that.

Mr. Wells: Of course, the population of your province is decreasing too.

Mr. Cole: They're all going to Ontario - where they've been going for years.

It may be a reflection of our crime prevention programs or the alternative measures programs. I know in my part of the province there are local communities that historically have had problems with young offenders. In these last couple of years, we've noticed a decrease there. What you want to attribute it to, I don't know.

Mr. Chapman: In Yarmouth, where they have the all saints program, Hallowe'en night used to be a place where there was all kinds of destruction and so on. In the last four years since they've had this program they have not had one example of vandalism - not one. The program has been that dramatic.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Gallaway.

I want to thank all of you for sharing your information and knowledge with us. I wish you luck in your conference.

We'll rise for a few minutes to let our next witness get located.

.1402

.1410

The Chair: I'll call the meeting back to order and say for the record that we have with us now the Hon. Jane Barry, Solicitor General for the Province of New Brunswick.

Welcome, and please go ahead.

Hon. Jane Barry (Solicitor General, Government of New Brunswick): First of all, I want to thank you very much for hearing our presentation from the Province of New Brunswick. It's a pleasure to be here and see some familiar faces. Mary Clancy and I date back to our school days at Sacred Heart in Halifax.

I did have an opportunity to look at a number of presentations that have already been heard or are scheduled to be heard. It really was quite overwhelming. Having stood in your shoes in times gone by, I know how after a while it becomes very fuzzy as to who said what. So I'm hoping by adding a few visuals that at least you might remember what we said. I'm using some of the techniques my mother employed as a teacher, that if you see something it kind of helps to stay with you.

I do understand that you must be tired, but I'm pleased to be here. I want to tell you as well that we do place a very high value on our young people, and that's where we're coming from with everything we're doing. I'm sure every jurisdiction says the same thing. We're placing a strong emphasis in all our initiatives on the rehabilitation of the young person.

In preparation for this, I have Brenda Thomas with me today. She is associated with our department in our policy section.

I want to speak a little bit more first-hand. I am not a lawyer and I'm not an expert in criminal justice. I'm a mother of five children, and I've been involved in community organizations over the years. But I did do a little bit of informal consultation. I consulted with policing agencies and some judges in the youth courts. I also went to our secure custody facility and talked with a number of our young offenders. I've done that in the past, but I did it more recently with the explicit purpose of coming here so that I would get a little bit of feedback from them. How can you speak about them without actually getting their input as well?

I am reflecting as well, in some of the things I'm going to be talking about, a previous position I had with the Government of New Brunswick - and I have been a representative now for nine years - as the minister responsible for early childhood services. I am firmly convinced that what happens to a child when they're really young has a lifelong impact on them. That's why you'll hear me mentioning early intervention and then preventive approaches as ones we think are very important.

.1415

So we have put stress on early intervention. We've put stress on stay-in-school programs. Overall the province has shifted to the community in a variety of different ways, whether for mental health services or for social services. As I'm going to be mentioning in a few moments...and I brought along a copy of this document today. About a week and a half ago we announced a major shift to community corrections within our Solicitor General's department. We're trying to balance somewhat the resources and the energies we spend on institutions by doing more things at the community level. We think it's in harmony with the direction of some of the legislative changes the Government of Canada has made, and we're doing it because we're really not at all sure what we've been doing in the past is working.

As I came in I heard you speaking about alternative measures, and we've been doing that, and fines as options, and restitution and community service, and open custody. We think they're effective.

[Translation]

The provincial government intends to continue improving its community programs by concentrating on the needs of each offender and by making sure that close incarceration be used only for the small number of violent offenders who cannot be controlled and who need a structured environment.

[English]

We look on secure custody as the absolute last resort. We've tried to take a multi-disciplinary approach. In other words, we don't act as just one department alone. We have responsibility for the administration of justice for the prosecution, but we also work closely with health and community services and with mental health services for our young offenders.

I want to state clearly at the beginning that we support the principles of the Young Offenders Act, and I think that's an important starting point.

We want to show you.... I brought along a couple of charts, and you're going to see the same thing there.

I find it's useful for us to look at how young offenders are dealt with, 78% going through court and the red portion dealt with through alternative measures. In 1994-95 that amounted to 836, or some 22%.

Then if we jump and take this blue section and expand it, you see that 23% of the blue section go to secure custody. The balance are dealt with in community-based open custody or other types of programs. They're not guilty, they have absolute discharges, their cases are still pending, etc.

That is the experience we have in the community. In fact, secure custody in the year in question decreased by 6% and community dispositions increased by 5%.

We wanted to talk for just a moment about the rate of incarceration. I didn't bring that chart with me, but I think it is very important to note that Canada does incarcerate people at the second-highest rate in the world. That is a chart I use often, particularly when we're speaking about these changes in overall adult end-use, because I find the public is very surprised when you say that. We are after only the U.S.

The chart I usually hold up shows Canada is somewhere out here at number 2. Then I tell them I'd need about five more of these to demonstrate the rate of incarceration of the U.S., and of course we know their success rate is not very good. We are saying probably this is not an effective deterrent at all.

I will just note about the crime rate that New Brunswick being the ``blue'' it is, we are substantially lower; about 20% lower than the national rate. Yet interestingly enough, when we're talking about adults we have a 20% higher rate of sentencing to jail. That is rather noteworthy.

Mr. Wells: Is that percentage offenders or charges? What is the percentage on that?

Ms Brenda Thomas (Senior Policy Analyst, Corporate Policy and Planning, Department of the Solicitor General, Government of New Brunswick): Here you go. These are offenders, so 23% of all of our youths dealt with in youth court are in secure custody.

.1420

Mr. Wells: I was referring to the slide you took off.

Ms Thomas: Okay. That's charges.

Mr. Wells: You have 2,916 offenders and you have percentages. It could be assault and property at the same time.

Ms Barry: In other words, one offender might be charged with more than one offence.

Ms Thomas: That's right. We dealt with approximately 2,900 youths in youth court in 1994-95.

Ms Barry: This gives an indication of the kinds of offences that young offenders committed in that particular year, just for background. The violent crime has increased, but nevertheless it still is a small proportion.

The main point we would like to make is we believe there still needs to be a separate youth justice system. At present we have two secure custody facilities, and youths are in one building with adults. That is a strictly temporary measure. We are in the planning stages for a new secure custody facility. Our other facility is much more dated. We do strongly support it being separate.

I want to talk about early intervention and pre-emptive services, about the need to have the young offender programs community based and about the fact that violent youths need a structured setting. I want to talk for a few minutes about public education on the Young Offenders Act and then finally about cost-sharing.

[Translation]

New-Brunswick strongly support the use of a separate justice system for young offenders, as well as keeping the minimum age at 12 and the maximum age at 17.

[English]

I heard your earlier question about the age. Our response would be similar to what you just received: our system of helping community services would deal with those youths, and we do not support the reduction of the age to lower than 12.

With regard to early intervention, I can't speak strongly enough about the importance of that, and about the general importance of the early years in a child's development. The recent amendment to the declaration of principles of the Young Offenders Act is a positive step in recognizing the social factors, and we highly endorse crime prevention. I was just last night reading about the disproportionate amount we spend on institutions and the very small amount we spend on crime prevention.

We in New Brunswick do have about 60 organizations involved in crime prevention. We have signed a memorandum of understanding recently that says the proceeds of crime will go to crime prevention. In fact I would recommend that consideration be given to some of those proceeds from crime funds going to early intervention programs as a way of being involved in crime prevention. It would be important to consider that as a valid expenditure.

Our Department of Health - and I mentioned to you my earlier experience with childhood services - has been involved for about three years in what they call the Early Childhood Initiative. It is from prenatal to age five. There's a single entry point. It's done through the public health system. They target it to at-risk parents. We'd like to do everybody, but our resources are limited, so we try to determine who are the at-risk mothers and children and spend our resources there.

It's very long-term, because if we're starting before the child is born, we're not going to know for a long time whether it works, but I do believe it will. We are going to do an evaluation of that program so we'll know if it is in fact effective or not. New Brunswick has been recognized by the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research and the Centre for Studies of Children at Risk as a leader in this regard. We think it is worthwhile. We spend $5.9 million a year on that particular program.

I want to talk for a moment about family violence. Again, I'm not an expert, but New Brunswick does intend to and already has been very involved in the issue of family violence. We have a Minister for the Family. In fact, we were even recognized by the United Nations for having a separate ministry for the family. Just a week ago she made a very significant policy statement on family violence, so we're going to hype up, shall we say, our public awareness of that.

.1425

We have a foundation, the Muriel McQueen-Ferguson Foundation for the Prevention of Family Violence.

My view is that if you examined the backgrounds of both adult and young offenders, that is the common thread that follows many histories of those individuals. Some type of abuse has occurred to them. It's extremely common, and in a lot of cases that leads to their addictions, which then, of course, lead to a life of crime in many cases.

If there's one message I wanted to emphasize and leave with you today, it's my conviction that family violence is a very serious, very pervasive problem in our society. The more we do about that and its prevention, the better off we will all be.

I'll just tell you my limited experience with it. We have a program to compensate victims of crime, and some years ago it had been cost-shared with the federal government.

Those files cross my desk, and I have to sign off the approval. I was curious how it worked and started looking into them. We receive about 400 a year.

What is absolutely staggering is how many of those are victims of some type of abuse, the amount of abuse that is occurring in the families. You read the circumstances, and I don't think people have any idea of how pervasive it is.

Now, I wanted to refer to the Atlantic crime prevention council and talk about that for a moment.

In New Brunswick we have put strong emphasis on community-based policing as one of the preventive activities. We think we've been the leader as far as the RCMP district policing concept is concerned. That is where we're making use of technology.

They actually are taking the laptop computers in their vehicles, and they're downloading that information. They've gone from some 50 forms down to 13.

More than half their time was spent on administrative functions, and they're able to be out and have more contact at the community level. They have divided the province into 11 districts, and they're about halfway through that process now.

So we've had people coming from all across the country to look at district policing, and we're very pleased with the way the RCMP are engaged in that. They're able to do it at a time when we're asking them with our provincial contract to keep the lid on increases, and they've been very cooperative on that.

The other way we're using technology - and we're just about to embark on this major step - is with our integrated justice project. We're doing that in partnership with the Department of Justice and the private sector.

We think over a period of four years the entire criminal justice system will be transformed. It will range from an accused's first court appearance and how that court appearance might be scheduled, to tracking the data on that individual, using it with our new community corrections direction to have their information on that offender, right down to their eventual release.

So we're going to use technology, and we are going to make a very radical transformation. The software and know-how that will be developed are going to be to the private sector's benefit, shall we say, from this partnership, and we're about to embark on that. We've been doing preliminary work now for well over a year.

We think that's a fairly significant step, and we're pleased we're on the information highway. We want to show that it is working.

Now, I mentioned risks and needs. With our new direction in community correction we're going to have a more formalized risk and needs assessment process, both for youth and adults.

We'd be looking at each individual, actually assigning a number, a concrete number, to their needs and risks.

In our community programs we're only going to consider low-risk individuals. They'll still serve part of their sentence in an institution, but it will be a lesser part. More of their sentence will be served at the community level after we've figured out their needs and have them in the programs that are going to help address their needs.

.1430

That's a little bit about the risks and needs assessment. Let me give you a few examples of the programs: substance abuse, anger management, spousal abuse, victim empathy, life skills, job readiness, and relapse prevention.

I was interested to hear you mention the sentencing circle. We had our first example of that in New Brunswick a few weeks ago. I think that restorative justice concept is really a worthwhile one, because if you want to bring in the victims and try to have some sort of resolution, it seems to make a lot of sense.

In my discussions with youth recently - and I don't know if you can make any generalization about what they told me - they found the anger management and self-esteem programs very helpful to them.

I learned another thing from them that I guess I already knew because we had done surveys of our youth in secure custody in two different years. We found that over two-thirds of them were victims of abuse, and over two-thirds of them had addictions. So that is a very major underlying problem our youth have, and not just those in secure custody.

Every one of the youths I interviewed the other day had addictions. I was really in my own community - some of them came from the Saint John area where I live - and I was really distressed by the....

I knew from my own children - not that they were too involved - that drinking is very pervasive among high school kids. But I had hoped that drugs weren't as pervasive as these young people told me.

They said that in one junior high half the kids in the school were on drugs. They went out at lunchtime, came back and they were...whatever particular drugs....

I was really shocked when the young person told me that a rural high school in the Saint John River valley, in the northern part of the province, cocaine was extremely commonplace.

So that's not news we want to hear. But we know addictions are very common, and in our new community approach we are going to take some of our dollars and establish a centre for youth with addictions, using the Portage Foundation out of Quebec.

They established a program fairly recently for our young offenders in Saint John, based on the peer counselling model. So they actually form a therapeutic community. It has a strong discipline foundation, but they also reinforce positive behaviour and actually meet in groups three times a day. This peer influence seems to work very well.

One of the most difficult moments in my time in politics was a little more than a year ago. We had youth in another care custody facility, had just gone through the multimillion dollar Miller inquiry on abuse that had gone on for more than a decade in one of our institutions for youth.

We felt we were on the right track, and we learned that the youth in that facility were involved in abuse with one another. No charges were ever laid with regard to staff. But having just gone through this terrible experience with the Miller inquiry, I had to stand up in the legislature and say that it was happening again.

You say to yourself - and I don't want to take your time, but maybe it would be helpful to you....

I had been up there, and we'd been in the dining hall. We learned that kids were actually being deprived of their meals. And you're saying, how could that happen?

The youth counsellors are standing around there. It was all a very coercive kind of behaviour. So you'd stand in line, you'd get your meal, and you'd sit down.

And he'd say, you'd better pass your dinner over, or you're going to get it when we get back to the unit.

And so if anybody said to the kid, why didn't you eat, he'd say, well, I wasn't hungry. Or they'd say, why do you have that bruise on your arm? Well, I tripped in the gym. So there was this awful atmosphere of not wanting to rat on anybody.

Even when we sent our staff up there, we couldn't get to the bottom of it without a tremendous effort. We finally pieced it together, removed the youth from that facility, and took them to Saint John. It was a very disruptive experience for everybody, but they've been there almost a year now.

We introduced this Portage program with the peer counselling approach. We've seen it in the U.S. as well, in some adult and youth institutions.

.1435

So I said to the kids I met in these places, well, what would you do if somebody was beating up on you, and you didn't want to rat? They said, well, we'd take it to our group, and we'd talk about it.

You might say we're really pinning our hopes on this program. If it continues to be successful, we're going to expand it to our new facility. This is the basis for that other Portage program for youth with addictions. Some of them will be young offenders, but some of them won't.

I just share that, as perhaps it is a little informative for you. That will also have a storefront operation.

As I indicated, we hope that next year we're going to be opening a secure custody facility. It's not that we want to have one - and we are moving toward the community direction - but we've concluded that the public isn't ready for a total community-based system yet.

For the protection of society we believe we must still have a facility for some young offenders. It will be about the same size. We hope our numbers are right as far as our predictions go.

We haven't had one in New Brunswick since the Young Offenders Act came into force, so we're going to offer the best rehabilitative, educational, and treatment programs we can identify.

Although it will have space for 100 youths, it's going to be a cottage type of arrangement, so they will be separated. And as I said, I have visited probably at least half a dozen youth facilities in Canada and the U.S. We hope we'll get the advantage of a certain critical mass to meet the needs, but yet they're going to be separated. They're not even going to eat together. We had quite a debate about this.

I heard someone saying, you know, if you didn't know all the negative tricks before you went into an institution, you knew them by the time you went out. So hopefully we think that will minimize some of that wider contact. That will be the basis....

We're going to have an advisory committee from the community at large in New Brunswick advocating for youth, individualized academic and vocational training, and so on. So that is the result.

Now, I wanted to mention that 52% of those in closed custody are there as the result of violating probation. That is an interesting statistic.

You'll see a little about the background of the young offenders there.

Brenda, from the various slides you have, as far as educational level and age are concerned, there's actually very little difference. You saw earlier the kind of offences for which they were either incarcerated or sentenced. As I said, the backgrounds are abuse, addictions, being behind in school - usually males - and very frequently very little family support.

The province takes the position of supporting the cut-off at age 18, not 16 as some may suggest. But we also want to mention the fact that there are some youths, 16 and 17 years old, we really are not sure what to do with, so we're going to be making a recommendation that for those who don't seem to respond, they make a change in the legislation so that they could be treated as adults. We recently had one such situation.

It's just terribly challenging with some of these youths - we hope not very many. We're sort of at our wits' end.

As far as the maturity aspect is concerned, I wanted again to share with you the discussions I had with the young offenders. It was interesting.

They all pretty well had started breaking the law at 11 or 12 years old. Most of them with whom I spoke were 15, 16, 17 years old. They themselves - now, maybe they're not all going to turn out perfectly because they have some horrendous backgrounds - recognized that as they matured and got older, things had changed for them in the way they responded.

I asked a number of them that if they had known the sentences were tougher, would that have changed the crime they committed? I asked if they had thought ahead, that they were going to get so many months or years in jail?

.1440

There was sort of a mixed reaction. Some said it might make a difference, but most of them said they never thought about that. They acted impulsively. I would say that maturity is something that needs to be considered, and for that reason 18 seems to be more logical.

Just to repeat again, I do recommend for your consideration an amendment to the review sections of the Young Offenders Act to allow for the transfer of what we hope is a small number, 16- and 17-year-olds, to adult facilities.

Now, I believe Mr. Ramsay was going to ask me something about my views on contributing to the delinquency of a youth, or words to that effect. One of the other things these young people told me about, which I have mentioned here in my presentation anyway, is....

I talk to a fair number of mothers who call me at home, at all hours of the day and night.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Ms Barry: Well, it's good though, because it gives you an insight.

They'll say to you, well, look, so-and-so is with this 35-year-old man, and he has a whole gang of these kids. They're out breaking and entering, and whatever else they're doing. He gets them drinking, gets them into drugs.

I don't know the remedy because I'm not a lawyer, and I don't have all the answers. And if you can find them, there's a difficulty, because I'm sure policing agencies sometimes know who they are, but they may not be able to apprehend them.

There appears to be a substantial amount of adult involvement with youth who.... The adults know very well that the sentences are less serious, and they're preying on some of these kids.

So if you, in your wisdom, can come up with any remedies for that, I think it would be great. Maybe they're already there, I'm not sure.

Now, just to take a few moments.... It's very nice to have seen you, Mary.

Ms Clancy: You did your mother proud!

Ms Barry: Let me take a few moments to talk about public education, and I put to you this term: everyone is an armchair expert on the Young Offenders Act.

Everybody. There's a radio show in Saint John; it's amazing. I'll bet anything they have never seen it, haven't the faintest idea what's in it.

Just to give you an example, the other day on a radio show they did a telephone poll: is the Young Offenders Act tough enough?

Of course, everybody in the world calls up and says no, but if you ask them, do you know what's in it, I'd bet they'd all say no as well.

Just to give you another illustration, we had an awful situation two months ago. I think it was four youths and one adult who broke into a house in a rural area outside Fredericton. The mother was nine months' pregnant, and stood in the driveway as they were escaping. She and her husband came home while they were still there.

My gosh, they hit her and dragged her under the car. The child was born, and it's all right, but naturally it just got people absolutely beside themselves: the Young Offenders Act, we have to do something about this.

Not one of those youths had a record, and again illustrating my point about the influence of adults, this person had a very strange background. He took these kids, and preyed upon them.

No matter how tough your Young Offenders Act, it wouldn't have mattered with those youths because they'd never been in conflict with the law before, so you can't always make that generalization.

I would recommend some type of national campaign that would involve the youth and their families, the professionals and communities with regard to the Young Offenders Act.

Now, cost-sharing is the final point I wanted to touch upon. If we go back to April 1985, there was a 50% cost-sharing arrangement in place with regard to the Young Offenders Act. That expired in 1988-89, and then it was frozen.

The current agreement just expired about a month ago, and we are very grateful for the contribution we do receive. It's $4.6 million, but our costs for 1994-95 for youths are $11.2 million. So if you did a calculation on what we might have got, it would have amounted to some $4.58 million in previously shareable costs.

We know the Government of Canada is having fiscal difficulties, just as we are here in the province of New Brunswick.

.1445

I'm not a constitutional expert. I was trying to put myself in your shoes. I chaired the hearing for the constitutional accord a few years ago, so I can remember how you felt. I was trying to think of the constitutional background, and the Government of Canada does make the laws and we administer them. If you make changes in your laws that result in either longer sentences or more youths going into secure custody, yet you're going to cost share on more of a community basis, that creates great challenges for us at the provincial level. We have the philosophy of enhancing community based, but to repeat what I said earlier, we still believe some youths have to be in secure custody.

So we're making a plea and we hope the Government of Canada will restore the previous arrangement or that some types of.... Negotiations are under way, and we'll be discussing it at our minister's meeting in May. I do want to strongly indicate that we would appreciate the restoration of that cost-sharing approach.

In conclusion, our recommendations are maintaining a youth justice system that recognizes young offenders must be accountable and that we put the focus on prevention. The proceeds of crime...was one suggestion that I was making, as well as the continuation of community-based youth justice, with the least possible reliance on secure custody. The inter-disciplinary approach....

I want to take a minute here. This is my personal experience. It appears to me, and one of the youth court judges was telling me, that I have to sentence a young person to secure custody to get a psychological assessment. Why should I have to take up space in that institution? I need to be able to put them into open custody or other type of setting.

Nine times out of ten an assessment has already been done, but there isn't good information-sharing, even between departments provincially. Maybe I'm saying it to the wrong body, I don't know, but this inter-disciplinary approach and the sharing of information, which we hope will be improved with our integrated justice, we think will be really important.

The review section for those exceptional cases of transfer to adult, the public education strategy, and the funding commitments - we are convinced that youths are a resource that we can't squander and that every single young person, whether they've come in conflict with the law or not, needs our support and attention.

That concludes my presentation. Thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you, Minister. We have a bit of time left.

Mr. Ramsay, you have five minutes.

Mr. Ramsay: Thank you for coming all the way to make this presentation to us. I appreciate it.

We never have enough time to talk to our witnesses from my point of view. Maybe it's because I want to ask so many questions. Because we have only five minutes I'd like to get to this business about whether or not you think the Criminal Code still has a section in it that deals with contributing to the delinquency of a minor.

I'm not satisfied that it's there, but I've been advised by the chair that it is. I haven't been able to find it. If it is there, as solicitor general of your province, can you give the committee some idea of how many charges have been laid against adults who were involving youth in crime? If there is a Criminal Code offence there and if the number of people I think are involved, as you touched on in your address to us.... Can you tell us whether or not there are any charges being levied by the police departments in your province for adults involving children in crime?

.1450

Ms Barry: I will have to give you the informal answer because I can't give you a number or a statistic. I didn't bring that with me. My informal survey of young offenders happened just a few days ago, so I did not do a lot of research into that.

My assistant, Brenda, who is familiar with it feels that perhaps it might be there but it's not being utilized, or enforced, whatever the right term is. My observation would be, and again I may not be the appropriate person to answer the question, that I can't think of when I last saw a charge such as that laid.

Mr. Ramsay: I think your brief indicates support, though, for that type of law enforcement.

Ms Barry: Yes, absolutely. It didn't really become that evident to me, although mothers have called me on the phone, until I talked with these youths, so I think as a result of that it's something we should as a province be discussing with our justice department because they have the responsibility for prostitution.

Mr. Ramsay: It's been suggested by a former senior member of Correctional Service Canada that all non-violent offenders presently in custody at the adult level be released. That would include approximately 80% of the inmates of provincial institutions across Canada. What do you feel about that suggestion?

Ms Barry: We believe we do not have to have as many low-risk offenders in our institutions as we do now, and that's why I was mentioning achieving a balanced new policy direction that we announced about a week and half ago. So they will still be in institutions. We're not opening the doors.

Roughly what it means is that about 25% of our provincial beds will be closed over the next three years. We'll be using this risk-needs assessment as a measuring tool to determine who's appropriate in the community and who isn't.

The analogy that I give is with the health care system. I'm not sure about Saskatchewan, but I think there's been some pretty radical changes there too if I remember correctly. We've been able to close hospital beds in our province not because fewer people are getting sick but because we're getting better at treating them for a shorter time. They might come in as a day person to have their tests done and then maybe go home sooner. There might be more day surgery. So the throughput is the same, but the number of beds needed if you added it all up in a year is less, so that would apply to what our changes are in the correctional system.

Mr. Ramsay: Thank you. You also touched upon family violence. Would you support the mandatory treatment and counselling for abusive spouses?

So often complaints come in to the police, but the wife doesn't want to lay a charge. Whenever that occurs, would you support the mandatory treatment or counselling of the abusive spouse?

Ms Barry: I think I would. I don't think I ever had that question posed to me before, but I'm sure it would be possible to accomplish that.

Mr. Ramsay: I've known women who are being beaten up and will not press charges and take it into court because their spouse sobers up in the morning and he's sorry and so on, and it goes well until the next time. Unless those individuals receive some type of counselling on how to handle and manage anger, eventually the beatings are going to go on and the children are going to suffer the consequences of that kind of an environment.

So I will be asking your colleagues across the country when we get to them, and maybe by way of correspondence...and hopefully the committee will see whether or not the solicitors general and the attorneys general across the country would be willing to support that kind of federal legislation.

.1455

Ms Barry: Could I add one thing, Madam Chair? We do in our province put the onus on the policing agencies to lay the charges, so it's not up to the affected persons to lay the charges. It still doesn't always work.

We're now involved in some other initiatives with the police with regard to the number of women. We have very low representation, just a little over 5%, of women in policing agencies, and I think that's probably a factor as well.

The Chair: Mr. Gallaway.

Mr. Gallaway: Thank you, Minister. You were absolutely correct with respect to the pictures and the visual show here.

Something struck me as being terribly profound in the sense that we've heard about it - and we visited the facility in Sydney Mines - in terms of education and how that correlates to people who are often in trouble with the law. It is that 56% of your young offenders expenditures deal with secure custody matters, yet if you look at the psychological profile of the youth in secure custody, 63% of those young offenders are two years behind academically.

There are a number of other indices that are common with young offenders in secure custody, but this is one that.... It's very difficult to know by looking at a person if they have five or more identified problems, but from a record-keeping perspective it's very easy to determine who is and who is not two years behind in school.

Within the province of New Brunswick, have you any program that is actively directed towards or targeted at these people who are falling behind or falling out of the system?

Ms Barry: We have a number of programs in different school districts, and I was a school trustee for four years. To help those individuals who drop out of the system and don't fit in because they're too old - and a number of them would be young offenders - we're now using information technology more to help them. They work at their own speed and it seems to be working quite effectively, even with adults. And we've had some other programs to help youth and employment.

The other one I might mention is slightly less related, but it was in partnership with the federal government: New Brunswick Works, where we took the income assistance clients and had a two-year program of education, training and on-the-job experience. We discovered that it wasn't as simple as sending them back to school. They had multiple social problems that complicated their participation in the workforce, so it was a much more all-encompassing task.

The only thing I would say is that yes, they might be on average two years behind in school, but they have all those other factors impinging on them.

Brenda, you can add something if you want.

Ms Thomas: We're a little unique in New Brunswick because we've built on the multi-disciplinary approach. In our secure custody, where the data come from, it's our Department of Education that provides a full-fledged school program, and for a number of years our training school and our new youth centre will probably be the same. It is an accredited school so that when the youth leave.... It's upon entrance that they come in two years behind academically. They go into an individual school program that's recognized by the Department of Education so that when they leave and go back to their home community, they're back in the school system. There's a continuation because we contract from the Department of Education to run our programs and our facilities.

In addition we've had a federal-provincial initiative, Stay in School, as part of our Excellence in Education, and young offenders have been targeted as one of the groups. That funding has now ended, but the province is continuing some of the programs in that area.

.1500

Ms Barry: My observation is that schools don't want a lot of these kids back. They are terrible discipline problems. They have spent so many months in secure custody, then they might be moved to open, and then back to their home community...it's a very disruptive sort of process. That's why if they can stay at the community level in the first place without these moves around, it's kinder for them.

Mr. Gallaway: There's one other series of statistics, other youth court information...this is just my perception of events and of what's happening...but I have somehow been led to think that drugs and alcohol are a very significant problem. I note that the Narcotic Control Act is 2%, impaired driving is 1%, and provincial statute violations...and I'm going to assume that they are all liquor offences -

Ms Thomas: There would be some driving.

Mr. Gallaway: All right. But even if I make the assumption that it's all liquor offences, it's only 20%. So I think that's very helpful information to us.

Ms Barry: I would suggest that the property related...are probably all stealing to pay for their drugs. I shouldn't say all, but I bet a lot of it is.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Gallaway.

Minister, thank you very much for sharing this with us. It was a great presentation. We really enjoyed hearing you.

Ms Barry: Thank you, and good luck with your hearings.

The Chair: Thank you. You gave us a lot to think about.

The meeting is adjourned to the call of the chair.

Return to Committee Home Page

;