EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Monday, September 23, 1996

.1359

[English]

The Chair: We're back in session.

We have Arlene Gaudreault, who is the president of the Association québécoise Plaidoyer-Victimes Inc. Welcome. I expect you'll have a statement to make, and after that we'll ask questions. Take as much time as you need to make your statement.

[Translation]

Ms. Arlene Gaudreault (President, Association québécoise Plaidoyer-Victimes inc.): First of all, I would like to thank you for inviting us to take part in the work of your committee.

.1400

Before reading my opening statement, I wonder if you could tell me how much time I have?

[English]

The Chair: We have about an hour altogether.

[Translation]

Ms. Gaudreault: About fifteen minutes for the presentation and the rest of the time for discussion? Fine.

I would first like to tell you about the organization I represent, which most of you are probably not familiar with; I brought a few information documents for the members of the committee.

The Association québécoise Plaidoyer-Victimes is a group that defends the rights and interests of the victims of criminal acts. We exist, and have been incorporated, since 1984. The association is a non profit organization which consists of 250 stakeholders and persons who are concerned by the fate of victims of criminal acts. Some of them have themselves been victims, but the majority of our members are people who work with victims in shelters or centres that provide assistance to victims. Our members are also drawn from the ranks of policemen, parole supervisors, social workers and educators who work with young offenders.

Our group is probably slightly different from those you met in other provinces, where similar associations are generally made up of victims and their parents and families.

We do a great deal of work to promote rights and we are often asked to provide our opinion on bills. I might say that our federal Minister of Justice has been very prolific in this regard lately. We were consulted on judicial review and the matter of dangerous sexual offenders. We were not there for the first phase, because sometimes we are just incapable of responding to all of the requests that come our way. Like many organizations that work with victims, we have a very small budget. Sometimes we just run out of steam and we cannot represent the point of view of victims as we would like to.

As the Young Offenders Act has now reached the second reading phase, we wanted to make a few representations that deal basically with the effect of the law and its enforcement. We won't be suggesting amendments, as they have already been made. We would, however, like to give you the victims' point of view, with regard to the respect of their rights and the enforcement of the Young Offenders Act.

We would like to draw some links with other Acts or statements that are important, in our opinion, for instance the recognition of rights incorporated into the United Nations Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power, which Canada worked on, and which our organization also contributed to; the declaration was adopted in 1985.

I would also like to remind you that in 1989 the Canadian government adopted a statement of principles relating to victims of crime, and that our province, among others, passed an Act Respecting Assistance and Compensation for Victims of Crime which recognizes certain rights to victims.

I would like to do the following exercise with you today. How are those rights being applied at the present time with regard to the Young Offenders Act? What are its shortcomings? What improvements should be made to improve the treatment of victims of criminal acts and of witnesses?

Does what I am suggesting suit the committee, Madam Chairperson?

[English]

The Chair: Yes, of course.

[Translation]

Ms. Gaudreault: There were so many themes in the committee's mandate that I no longer knew whether what we had to say was related to the concerns of the committee.

I would like to refer to a certain number of needs that are important to victims and see with you how the Young Offenders Act meets those needs, and I would also like to tell you what we deplore at the present time.

One of the most important needs victims of criminal acts have is the need to be informed. Two very important studies carried out by the federal Department of Justice still reflect the current situation very well, in part if not entirely, in spite of the fact that they were done some ten years ago.

In Alberta, we contacted respondents who were victims and witnesses who had dealings with the justice system and we asked them whether they had obtained the information they needed from the justice system.

.1405

Seventy-three per cent of the persons we interviewed told us that they had not tried to obtain information since they did not know how to go about doing so or where to turn. Those persons told us that they were disillusioned with the system.

Another study involving seven Canadian cities showed that over 80 per cent of the 888 respondents had not requested assistance. From 44 to 50 per cent of the persons interviewed said that they did not expect to receive assistance; they had no positive expectations, they did not know how to go about getting help and they did not know where to find that information.

Those results speak for themselves. Even if greater efforts were made to inform victims, mechanisms to transmit information are inadequate at all levels and non-existent in some cases. I know that because I often work with people from parole offices, the police, and correctional services.

Turning now to the Young Offenders Act, the situation is even more dramatic because of the obligation to respect confidentiality. Information in that case is even more difficult to come by when victims ask for it. At the present time, no one - I'm referring here to the individuals I spoke to who do various forms of social intervention - feels that he or she has the official right to provide any information whatsoever about the individual who perpetrated the crime to the victims of criminal acts. What happened to the young offender? Has anyone taken charge of him, is he being taken to court, are there postponements, are any measures being taken? Has he been released? Will he have to respect certain conditions? Has the case been discharged? In the majority of cases, those questions remain unanswered.

It is rare that the decisions taken by police, the provincial director and the court are passed on. Why? Because there is no document, no policy, no mechanism in place that would make it possible to meet this need for information in even a minimal way. Compare that to the situation which exists within the Correctional Service of Canada, which I know fairly well because I work regularly with its employees, and the National Parole Board. They have adopted a policy which allows them to provide the victims with certain information. They have staff members - I am talking here about Quebec, since I am less familiar with the situation in other provinces - who respond to the requests from victims who want to know whether their aggressor has been released, if he is going to be, and if he has to respect certain conditions.

That type of mechanism, which shows respect for the victim, for his needs and his security is totally non-existent in our province. At the present time Quebec has no mechanism to provide the information victims need.

Even though our law in Quebec states that victims have the right to be informed at all stages of the legal proceedings, I would say that when victims have to deal with the juvenile justice system they are less well treated here in Quebec than in the adult system, because that system has a four-pronged information program on the legal process called INFOVAC. It is administered by the Quebec Department of Justice and makes it possible for victims and witnesses to be given information all through the process, from the police intervention until the end of legal proceedings, including the victim's statement. Why are the victims who are assaulted by a young offender treated differently? Why does the system that handles young offenders not put in place a similar program?

Another grave shortcoming must be pointed out. It involves the courts which handle young offenders. At the present time, they have no reception services for victims and witnesses. There is no waiting room where they could be isolated from their aggressor and the victims don't know what they are supposed to do. The Young Offenders Act is a special law. It has its own protocol, its own methods, and the measures that may be taken pursuant to it are different. That type of information is not given to the victims, and in the juvenile system, victims are not guided or accompanied in any way.

.1410

Just by happenstance, this morning a worker from the Child and Youth Protection Centre phoned me and said: "I would like to reactivate that project I wanted to get going four or five years ago, which was to open a centre to receive victims and witnesses at the youth tribunal, just as they do at the courthouse when adults are being tried". They will soon be holding a symposium and she would like to promote that idea. I am quite familiar with that fact because I'm going to raise the problem this afternoon with the committee.

That problem has not only been pointed out in Montreal, but everywhere in the province. It has a very important impact. The fact that victims and witnesses are ignored and left in the dark shows our lack of consideration for these persons who are after all vitally concerned in that situation. They are given the impression that the system does not take them into consideration and that they have very little to expect from it.

On that topic, I would like to point out that the federal government played a very important role in the mid-eighties. I was the coordinator of the first centre to assist victims of criminal acts. At that time, the federal government was very involved in providing services to victims. It financed services for victims in a number of provinces as well as pilot projects for reception services for victims and witnesses in courthouses.

Why could the federal government not show similar leadership in the young offenders network, which offers very little at this time in the way of services for victims? Why could the federal and provincial governments not get together to jointly fund pilot projects that would meet those needs?

Victims often express their need to be treated with respect and consideration. I think that several witnesses have already told you about the problems victims have with regard to postponements and delays. You are also familiar with the Jasmin Report which highlighted that problem and referred to the multiplication of procedures and the poor planning of operations.

I would also like to point out that there are some excellent provisions in the Criminal Code which could be used to spare victims and witnesses useless trips and expenses. I am referring to the property right affidavit and to photographic evidence. Those provisions are almost never used and not at all well known in the juvenile system.

I would like to talk about another need and the way in which it could be met in the juvenile system: that is the need victims have to be heard. The Criminal Code allows the victim to make a statement to the court. That provision has been in effect since 1989, and we know it very well, since our association implemented, tested and assessed victims' statements in court. I think you are all familiar with the merits of that provision which allows victims to express their point of view and be heard, and, especially, to talk about the consequences of the crime to the judge before he hands down the sentence.

That interesting provision is not used in the adult justice system. We feel that this is very unfortunate because we are depriving ourselves of one way of allowing victims to be heard. Even the Jasmin Report made some very timid recommendations on victims' statements. In fact, it did not suggest that this program which has been in effect in Quebec since 1995 in all judicial districts might be implemented in the juvenile system, probably because of the costs involved. We feel that that measure should be put forward and that it could be very helpful to the victims.

The Jasmin Report, for those who have consulted it, limits itself to suggesting that the victims who wish to be heard should be given the opportunity to do so at the hearing when that is appropriate. That means that stakeholders, including judges, are given a great deal of latitude in deciding if and when victims will be invited to address the courts.

.1415

For the most part, victims do not know that that provision exists, and, very often, other stakeholders don't think of inviting the victims to address the judge.

We feel that the Jasmin Report expresses some rather vague intentions and that we should go much further and promote concrete programs.

I thought that in Quebec a victim statement program would be implemented in the court. It has been discussed for several months now, but at this time, there hasn't really been any progress on that front because of cuts to the system as a whole.

The Young Offenders Act also provides that in the predisposition report the results of an interview with the victim may be included - but it does say "If appropriate and insofar as possible".

When this is done, it provides an excellent opportunity to make victims feel that someone is concerned with what has happened to them, to explore the possibility of reparation, to provide information, and to be in contact with them to direct them toward resources.

Even though one hears that that practice is encouraged, we have to acknowledge that it is still used very little in the juvenile system, at least in our area. The Jasmin Report points out that only 50% of concerned parties stated that they always or frequently consult the victim. The committee feels that this is a good indication of how little the victim is taken into account in the search for solutions to the problems caused by the offence.

It is surprising to see that the juvenile system is so far behind other systems which have reacted much more quickly in recognizing the wrongs victims have suffered. I'm thinking of the Correctional Service of Canada which now takes the impact of the crime into much greater account in their community investigation, in their representations, before the Parole Board and in their assessment. The persons who work in this area have also been given quite a bit of training in this.

All of that leads me to say - and this is the conclusion I have drawn from the contacts I have had with the persons who work in this area - that when the matter of the victims is raised, those who work in the system are somewhat ill-at-ease. I don't know if the same is true in other provinces.

There is now a greater awareness of the plight of victims, but people tell us that time and resources are scarce and that their mandate is focused on young people and not on victims, that they do not have the necessary training to deal with victims, and that they do not feel safe should victims become vindictive.

You know that I have been meeting with stakeholders on this matter since 1986 at least and that our association also held a provincial conference on the whole matter of the victim's presence in the Young Offenders Act. I will also be taking part in a workshop with them on October 24. As we have stated repeatedly, stakeholders who work in the field often tell me that there is a lack of leadership and institutional support for the initiatives they would like to take. They recognize that services and assistance to victims in the juvenile system are at the embryonic stage. There are isolated initiatives but there are no clear guidelines or policies. I also think that all of the changes and upheavals that that system has undergone are factors that have to be taken into account.

I don't know if this is true in other provinces, but here, at the administrative level, at the level of structures, there have been far-reaching reforms in the past two or three years, and they are still on-going. That turbulence is not over yet and I wonder to what extent the dossier of victims will be able to come to the fore in the current budgetary context.

I think that solutions will only be found to the discomfort of stakeholders and to the lack of interest shown victims in the juvenile system if we invest in the training and development of stakeholders. I think that is the cornerstone.

If we want to change attitudes, develop pro-victim attitudes in stakeholders, and show some empathy for victims, we must set up training and awareness-raising programs for stakeholders.

.1420

A lot has been done along those lines to change attitudes toward spousal abuse, but not much has been done for other kinds of victimization.

Over the past two years, our association has had the opportunity of providing extensive training to all of the police officers of the Montreal Urban Community. We trained 4,500 police officers. Over the past three years, we also met with all of the stakeholders of the Correctional Service of Canada. Some environments are more receptive than others, or, at least, they allocate bigger budgets. I think that without leadership in this field as a whole, without dedicated budgets, without a concerted federal-provincial examination of these matters, and without setting up training programs, we will not see rapid progress in this area.

The last need I would like to talk about is the need for compensation. I think that the Young Offenders Act, which used to be called something else, was the first Canadian law to recognize this need. Here in Quebec, where the need for compensation is concerned - I know that the committee met with the coalition of orientation organizations - in the juvenile network we have a unique program which is well organized, dynamic and creative. There are fewer court referrals in Quebec than in any other province. Young people are referred to the courts three times less often here than in the rest of Canada and I think that we have good reason to be happy about that.

Alternative measures can focus on the victims. These measures have multiple virtues with which you are familiar. They have educational value, and imply a recognition of the harm caused to victims. They are one way of not responding to violence with more violence. The victims that co-operate are generally pleased and satisfied with the results. This gives them the opportunity of expressing themselves. Very often, we note that they show understanding for the actions of the young offender. Of course, this causes certain problems related to the solvency of the young person and the availability of resources.

One of the problems we are concerned about in the current context is precisely the availability of resources in the community. New provisions concerning sentencing have just been passed in Bill C-41. Those provisions allow for alternate sentencing for adults. We are not against such measures, quite the opposite, but what concerns us at this time is the fact that these new provisions will mean an increased drain on community health services. Substantial costs will be incurred. There may be an overutilization of community resources and we wonder to what extent in light of the demand for adult community work, youth community work and compensation work, the community will be able to offer quality services and proper supervision of these measures and whether they will remain credible in the eyes of citizens who may end up wondering whether these alternate sentences are not second-rate measures.

We have here in Quebec, an alternate measures program that functions well and deserves to be looked at carefully. This was made very clear in the Jasmin committee report; even though there are many alternate sentences that call for community service, measures which focus on victims are rather rare. One alternate measure out of 50 concerns victims and the Jasmin Report says clearly that we need more measures that ask for direct compensation for victims.

I am quite conscious that the problems I have raised are related more closely to the application of the Act as such rather than to its content, and I know that provinces have the primordial responsibility to make changes in this area and undertake initiatives to improve the plight of victims and of witnesses in the juvenile justice system.

.1425

That being said, however, we expect the federal government to show more leadership that it has shown where victims' issues are concerned. In the early 1980s, the federal government did show very strong leadership through the Department of the Solicitor General of Canada particularly. I find it curious that the department responsible for Correctional Services is also the one that is the most involved in victims' issues, but I think we owe a great deal to this department for the services that have been implemented in the community and for the research in various areas that has been undertaken by Justice Canada.

From the mid-eighties onward, we noted a distinct withdrawal on the part of the federal government, in particular insofar as the compensation programs were concerned and in funding for pilot projects. We would like to see more cooperative efforts between the federal government and its provincial and territorial partners. We would like to see the federal government boost the funding of pilot projects, we would like it to take charge of the assessment of and information sharing about the evaluation of various programs or legislative amendments, where Canadian criminals are concerned in particular; we would like it to support research and training projects, and we would like it to be more available for discussion and more proactive, not only through repressive measures, but also through programs to show that it is also concerned with improving the daily plight of the victims of criminal acts.

That is the basic trust of our message. I thank you for your attention.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. St-Laurent, ten minutes.

[Translation]

Mr. St-Laurent (Manicouagan): Thank you very much, Madam. Your presentation was very clear. You spoke among other things of the urgent need to inform victims of the various means at their disposal to help them find solutions to their problems.

Do you not think that victims will only seek information when something happens to them, which is, of course, a very human reaction? What do you mean exactly when you talk about providing more information to people? Do you mean that we should provide information on the services available to them should they become victims at one time or another?

Ms. Gaudreault: There are various levels of information. When we say victim, I think we also have to think about citizens, generally because all of us may become victims one day. Most probably, several of us probablfy already have been victims in the past.

Canadian citizens in all regions of Canada must be informed about juvenile delinquency and violence, and about the programs that are available and the results of those programs. In the studies that have been carried out in this area, we often see the important role the medias play in sensationalizing crime.

There is also a great deal of misinformation. For those reasons, we must provide accurate information on the criminal activities of young people. Are they dangerous? What are the results of the programs that have been put in place and which taxpayers support? That is what I mean by different levels of information.

Another level of information comes into play with regard to the victim's relation to the justice system. How does the justice system work? What can we expect from it? What rights and recourses do we have? What right do we have to obtain compensation?

Currently, only 5 per cent of victims of criminal assaults receive compensation. That means that 95 per cent of victims did not seek to obtain it and a good proportion of those probably did not know that they could do so - they were not well informed. Each year, from 10 to 15 per cent of victims have their requests for compensation refused because they were not told in due time that that recourse was open to them.

.1430

Thus, information must be provided on how the system works, on what one can expect, and on rights and available recourses.

The point is that that kind of information is totally absent from the juvenile system. All that would be needed would be a folder, for instance, that would provide people with information on the main provisions of the Young Offenders Act and on the recourses available to victims. You might make your point of view known in the presentence report or when the sentence is handed down and you could be compensated that way. That is the type of information we are talking about.

Mr. St-Laurent: You've just quoted a rather alarming statistic. Apparently, out of 100 victims, only 5 are compensated, whereas the other 95 could be as well, according to you, if they knew that and could put in their request. Is that what you just said?

Ms. Gaudreault: Those are statistics that were released at the justice summit in Quebec in 1992. There may have been a slight improvement since then, since IVAC (criminal victims compensation) has provided some information to the police, to emergency services and to health services.

These statistics apply to Quebec and certainly also to other provinces where victims cannot exercise their rights because they do not have the necessary information. That is why we have emphasized the importance of the training provided to the 4,500 police officers, who must know what compensation services are about, who may ask for them and what the consequences of the lack of information are for the victims. I think that will help to change attitudes and will improve the provision of services. Allow me to reiterate that that infrastructure does not exist in the juvenile network.

The information I have been talking about is in the possession of groups who work to assist victimsi, but it cannot be given to victims because at this time there is no mechanism, nor any will to organize information sessions. All we ever see are limited, ad hoc initiatives in the context of conferences or workshops, and that is not sufficient.

I have three, or close to four, years of experience. I have met stakeholders from all of the penitentiaries and all of the parole offices in Quebec. We gave two days' training to those stakeholders. We had time to talk about the needs of victims as compared to correctional services, to talk about pro-victim attitudes in that sector and of the type of information victims need. The same sort of action should be taken in the juvenile system and similar programs should be put in place for training, awareness-raising, and information provision. That is really all I am asking for.

Mr. St-Laurent: I have been asked on a few occasions to intervene in compensation cases or requests for compensation. One thing seemed peculiar to me and you can tell me whether this is the way things are usually done. It seems that it is easier, for instance, to obtain compensation to replace a car damaged by bullet holes than to obtain something for the person who was in the car and may have been injured by the bullets. That is something I have been able to note firsthand.

Ms. Gaudreault: I will talk about the Quebec law because I'm not familiar with the others. In the Quebec law, there is only one provision that allows reimbursement for material damages; the provision only applies when someone attempted to assist in the arrest of an offender, was injured and suffered material damages. That is the only case where that is possible. Otherwise, one can be compensated for loss of income, for medical problems or rehabilitation, which is also referred to as social or employment rehabilitation reintegration. That is the only exception in the Quebec law, which I know very well.

But you are raising a very serious problem. It is true that it is often difficult for victims to obtain full compensation; there are many obstacles. It is a process which often means that victims feel even more victimized. We talk about secondary victimization. However, we have no statistics concerning victims who were aggressed by a young offender, which means that we have no way of knowing how many of those victims file claims with compensation services. There is no real information at this time about the juvenile justice system and claims filed there with compensation services, but I know that victims encounter greater difficulties when the offender was a young person.

.1435

Mr. St-Laurent: Do you think the administration process may be somewhat cumbersome?

Ms. Gaudreault: Even though there have been improvements, the process is cumbersome from the administrative point of view, because it is a complicated process. Indeed, there are many delays because of review and appeal processes, which complicate things. It is important that victims have access to that information and know that those services exist. I also know that in the juvenile system a lot of social workers or intervenors of that type do not have a good knowledge of the compensation plans that exist and, consequently, they do not refer victims in time to the services concerned. Obviously, if one acts sooner, victims receive assistance more quickly and suffer fewer looses.

Mr. St-Laurent: What concrete proposals would you have to provide more information, in a more effective way, to victims? You referred to this briefly earlier, but I would like to hear your concrete suggestions. Did I hear you say that we have to invest more money in personnel training, for instance?

Ms. Gaudreault: Concretely, yes. We must indeed invest a little more money, assess needs and, especially, work together. I must tell you that in our organization, the juvenile network is the weakest link in the chain, if one compares it to the system for other types of offenders. I think that we receive good co-operation from other networks such as correctional services for adults in general, but it is often difficult to reach the juvenile system. I also think, concretely speaking, that certain programs should be reviewed.

That review must be carried out jointly by the federal and provincial governments. There are certain provisions in the Criminal Code that are interesting. I'm thinking about the provisions concerning photographic evidence and property rights affidavits. It seems there are a number of things in the Criminal Code that the provinces do not apply, and hence, there is no assessment, nor any measures to encourage victims to turn to services that would be of benefit to them.

Personally, I have worked for victims' rights since 1984 and I note a withdrawal and a lack of leadership on the part of the federal government in this area. Indeed, we can't seem to find any door to knock on at the federal level; we have no one to talk to about victims' issues. I'm not saying that there are no initiatives and that there is a lack of interest, but it seems to be very difficult to find the person one is supposed to talk to, to find someone who is responsible for the issue, who will provide leadership, who is following the matter closely and who can see whether any given measure can be implemented, and how we can work with the provinces.

There also seems to be great discrepancies from one province to another. There's much more talk than action where victims are concerned - it is a topic that is well received, politically speaking - but in reality, very little is being done, very few concrete steps are being taken. A lot of people will talk the talk, but no one seems to be walking the walk.

Mr. St-Laurent: Thank you very much, Madam.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you.

Just as a point of information, and not to take away from any of the time my colleagues have, did I understand from what you were saying that in Quebec, because victims' compensation is governed by provincial legislation, it makes a difference if you're a victim of a young as opposed to an adult offender? Does that make a difference here in terms of the legislation they have?

[Translation]

Ms. Gaudreault: No. From the legislative perspective, no. Perhaps I did not express myself clearly, but I wanted to say that although I cannot quote statistics to support this, my impression is that fewer victims of young offenders, as opposed to victims of adult offenders, are referred to compensation services, for the simple reason that in the juvenile system workers are less familiar with the compensation system.

There's another problem I have not mentioned. I don't know if other groups have raised this, but we are very concerned about it. I have no figures to give you and I did not have enough time to do research, but I'm talking about the problem of young victims. They are average youngsters, no different from other young people.

We who work for the services that provide assistance to victims are coming to realize that those young people do not come to ask for help. There are a lot of unofficial figures about this type of crime, because these young victims don't always lay charges. As an example, let me tell you about a video cassette that the Association Plaidoyer-Victimes prepared about the consequences of victimization. We found it extremely difficult to find a young person who would agree to testify on tape about the problem of extortion, which is commonplace and which young people encounter fairly frequently. We discovered that young people who are victimized by other young people don't want to talk about it, and are even reluctant to ask for help. Obviously, they will not turn to services aimed at adults either. I realize that in saying this I am raising yet another problem rather than proposing a solution.

.1440

I was talking about research a minute ago. I think that research needs to be done so that we can document that aspect of the situation. What happens to those young people? Who helps them? I'm thinking particularly of young victims who have families who help them and who do not receive assistance under the Youth Protection Act.

Those families are told that they have what it takes to help the young person get over his problems because he comes from a good background. I have spoken to parents who had a child who had been abused by an adolescent. Several families in that situation had turned to our youth protection system and had been told that they had no need of those services since they were providing a good environment for their child. But those families did need help and they had to muddle along by themselves to find resources both for themselves and for their children who had been the victims of sexual abuse.

We don't really have a lot of answers right now and we don't have enough knowledge about that phenomenon. It is a problem that concerns us a great deal and research needs to be done on the victimization of young people by other young people and on what is being done to help them.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Ramsay, ten minutes.

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

I want to thank you very much for your presentation. This question about victims' rights really is part of the protection of society that the state should be concerned about and responsible for. We have had witness after witness after witness appear before our committee, not only in the review of the YOA but also on other bills. They have all been advocating the rights of the offender in terms of rehabilitation and so on. The rights of the victims have been completely ignored by these groups.

In fact, they go so far as to say, in the disclosure issue, whether or not the perpetrator of a violent offence should be made public. They fight hard to protect the rights of the offender to be protected from a stigma that may occur. They're right in that. The stigma may occur, but many people feel the direct consequences of the actions of the young offender.

There are people who will fight hard to protect the rights of the offender. Now, when you do that, you're taking away the rights of the victim. In almost every case there is a deterioration in the rights of the victims.

I think you can take encouragement from a number of sources. Randy White, who is a member of Parliament from the Reform caucus, has introduced a victims' bill of rights. It has not been ruled out of hand by the justice minister. He has indicated there is some validity in it.

Also, in one of the briefs that's been presented to us from the Quebec association of youth centres they very strongly support the Young Offenders Act as it now exists. In their brief they make a reference under the heading ``The role of victims'', and they say this:

...each of the sectors affected by the legislation and each of the people working with young offenders must also be scrupulous about giving victims all the attention they deserve. We are aware that we have a long way to go in this regard. We think, however, that respect for victims and their involvement in the application of the Act is a principle that should be added to the Declaration of Principle, set out in section 3 of the Young Offenders Act.

The reason I think you're eventually going to be successful in having the rights of victims recognized is that we're all potential victims. There's an enormous majority out there who will lend support to this idea.

Now, what we have to do as legislators is bring a proper balance into the equation; that is, what is fair and just to the offender? At the same time, what is reasonable in terms of compensation, or information you have mentioned, in the process to the victims? Who's the victim? Is it just the person who's been assaulted, or is it the mother and father of that child? Is it the brothers and sisters? Is it the friends and relatives, or is it society at large?

.1445

[English]

We could say it's a crime against society. Of course, the rippling effect is you go from the victim to the families to the relatives to their friends and beyond that. It affects all of society. So I think a very strong impetus is coming forward here because, as recognized in the brief I just quoted from, there hasn't been sufficient attention given to the victims of crime.

So, having said that, there are a couple of questions I noted. What do you feel about this whole idea of disclosure, particularly of repeat violent offenders? Bearing in mind that if the name of the young offender is publicized, it means that to a certain degree there will be a stigma.

It will be harder for that young individual to get a job. Perhaps there will be a negative impact on his self-image and his self-esteem. Do you feel legislation should come down on the side of the young offender or on the side of society and potential victims of society? How do you feel about that? There are members on both sides of that issue on our committee and there are witnesses who appear who are on both sides of that issue. How do you feel about that?

[Translation]

Ms. Gaudreault: That is a good question. My answer would probably be different if an adult were involved. Insofar as young people are concerned, I would tend to say that we have to avoid stigmatization. I know that there are important repercussions in the case of violent crimes, but I'm not certain that the fact of providing the name of the aggressor to the media brings any additional help to the victims. In any case, one thing is certain; this in no way guarantees that the victims will be better protected.

Let me hasten to add that I am sympathetic to the plight of young offenders, as is my organization. Rehabilitation is a more important principle in the law than punishment and I think that even though the protection of society must be uppermost in our minds, we must seek to avoid overly harsh penalties. In the case of juvenile delinquents, I don't see any need to divulge their identity to the media.

[English]

Mr. Ramsay: Thank you for that response. I'm thinking specifically of cases where drug trafficking is involved, where perhaps there are repeat sexual offences, and parents who are always seeking for the greatest advantage possible to protect their children from getting involved with peer groups that will lead them into crime. If they do not know who down the street or across the way is involved in these kinds of illegal and criminal activities, they then do not have the information to do what they can to keep their children from being drawn into that milieu.

So there is a concern in this area. The rights, or the benefits I guess you can say, of maintaining the present laws on disclosure, have to be weighed as to whether or not we allow those benefits to remain with the young offender or whether the parents of other children and other members of society have the right that the protection of that information, whatever that protection might be, would grant them. So that's the balance that has to be drawn and the decision that has to be made.

[Translation]

Ms. Gaudreault: I think that other questions are also important. For ten years now I have also worked as a community commissioner on the Quebec Parole Board and I sit on the boards of provincial penal institutions. I don't do this on a daily basis, of course, but I am always perplexed by the way in which our system works.

.1450

I have had files which I would describe as incomplete, to say the least, as they contain no information from the juvenile sector and very little information from the federal sector. Generally speaking, one does manage to obtain a little information when one asks the offender direct questions. You have to ask him whether he has a background of juvenile delinquency or whether he has ever been in a halfway house, because his file will not contain that kind of information.

If you want to improve the protection of society, I think that the systems need to be made more coherent, and that we need to know certain things; for instance, where alternate measures for adults are concerned, we need to know whether those measures were ever used before. When the person was in the juvenile system, did he or she benefit from them? Where they of use to him?

The whole process starts from scratch again when you go from one system to the other and it is surprising to see how, from one system to the other - I'm talking about the juvenile system, and the provincial and federal systems - there is no information transmission, which means, finally, that the system as a whole suffers from a severe lack of cohesion.

Last year, I also sat on a committee investigating a former inmate released on parole.

[English]

Mr. Ramsay: I have one more question.

[Translation]

Ms. Gaudreault: I'm sorry, but I will have to stop there. I had lost track of the time.

[English]

Mr. Ramsay: I'm sorry, I should have brought this question up earlier.

The Chair: Mr. Ramsay, you've used over ten minutes now.

Ms Torsney, did you -

Mr. Ramsay: Not according to my time; it's right on ten.

The Chair: Yes, it's 10 minutes and 22 seconds.

Ms Torsney (Burlington): First of all, I just wanted to correct the record, since you are somebody involved with victims in this issue. The motion that passed in the House was passed almost unanimously, if not unanimously, and the Minister of Justice is committed to come forward with a victim's bill of rights. So that will be expected sometime this year, in case there's any doubt.

As well, I want you to just clarify - some people pulled off their earphones before the translation finished in English - what your bottom line is on the publication of names.

[Translation]

Ms. Gaudreault: I'm opposed to releasing the names of adolescents.

[English]

Ms Torsney: Thank you.

The issue some people have brought forward to us is that there is a lack of understanding amongst a lot of young people about the current law, about the Young Offenders Act. Other people have said, no, young people know everything there is to know about the act; they laugh in its face, and they're wilfully ignoring the laws.

In terms of the children you've been involved with, young offenders you've met through the course of your work, what do you think their understanding of the law is in Quebec?

[Translation]

Ms. Gaudreault: Are you referring to young offenders?

Ms. Torsney: Yes.

Ms. Gaudreault: I think that young people as a rule are not very familiar with the provisions of this legislation. However, I do believe that they know something about the law in general, although this is not an overriding concern of theirs. Knowledge of the law will not have much of an impact on their behaviour.

However, it is possible to have a broad understanding of the law. I would even venture to say that those not working directly with juveniles have a partial understanding at best of the Young Offenders Act because it is rather complex and it has been amended on several occasions over the years. We can't expect young people and even young offenders to know the law well.

Take for example the law's provisions respecting drinking and driving which were substantially amended in 1985. According to a recent Justice Department study, Canadians are unfamiliar with the Criminal Code provisions respecting drinking and driving. Consequently, I don't think we should expect teenagers to know the ins and outs of the law or to understand how it is structured and the impact it can have.

.1455

[English]

Ms Torsney: I'll tell you, there are some people, probably even around this table, who think young people in fact know the law inside out, know just where the bounds are, know they get off easily, and if we were to increase the punishment for young people they would know this and would then not commit crimes against other people. They would not victimize others.

[Translation]

Ms. Gaudreault: I don't think the feeling of impunity is directly linked to knowledge of the law; rather it is the profit to be derived or pleasure taken in committing the crime that seems to matter most. When a person decides to commit an offence, he doesn't necessarily think about the punishment that awaits him. If people about to commit murder stopped to think about the punishment they would receive, there would certainly be fewer homicides. Therefore, I don't think that this can explain the behaviour of young offenders and I'm certain that there are many other factors far more complex than this one that come into play.

Young offenders are generally young people with social and family problems. It is also a fact that our society does not invest a great deal of money in prevention because this is very costly. Our focus is more on remedial measures.

Various studies were conducted in Quebec, one of which led to an extraordinary report, the Bouchard Report, which talks about the assistance that should be provided to single-parent families, to pregnant teenagers and to persons in high-risk groups. It is a known fact that a small proportion of the young offender population is responsible for much of the delinquent behaviour. It is on this category of individual that we need to focus our attention.

Crime and juvenile delinquency are very complex issues and cannot be analyzed on the basis of a single factor or response. We cannot be critical of young persons for not understanding the ins and outs of the law. Moreover, if you were to ask me to explain the legislation and all of its subtleties, even at my advanced age and with the knowledge that I have of this area, it would not be easy for me by any means.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Maloney.

Mr. Maloney (Erie): If I may, I'll take the balance of Ms Torsney's time.

You indicated that you felt victims should be apprised of the progress of a youth offender's case at four different stages. What are those four stages, and who should be responsible for this - the police, the prosecution, the crown attorney, a court administrator? Who should take that responsibility?

[Translation]

Ms. Gaudreault: Each level is responsible for providing information. I can say that at the present time, the police do not have a policy or guidelines in place for providing information to victims. A few police forces have pamphlets that they hand out to victims. At one point, a number of police forces out West had very clear guidelines and programs. Here in Quebec, however, not one single police force has followed this lead.

I believe that all levels have a responsibility to provide information, about plea bargaining as well as about the conditions of release. Each sub-system is responsible for the type of information that it must provide and for determining how it will provide it.

The Correctional Service has made a some progress in this area, even if the situation is far from perfect. In any event, a policy is in place. People are available to answer victims' questions, the victims can attend the hearings, and so forth. I repeat that there is a minimum that should be done in the justice system for young offenders so that victims know what to expect in court and what rights and recourses are available to them under the law.

Two persons have already spoken to us about a charter of victims' rights. This would certainly be a noble initiative on Mr. Rock's part, but I wouldn't get my hopes up too much that this will soon come to pass. We already have the UN declaration, the Canadian Parliament has already adopted the statement in principle and we also have in place legislation to assist and compensate victims of crime.

These are declaratory acts or statements of principle. They are no more than pious wishes. As long as they are not backed up by concrete initiatives and there is no obligation on the part of the police, the correctional services, the attorneys and lawyers who negotiate sentences between themselves, we will continue to hear a lot of talk about this. That's my personal opinion on the subject of a charter of victims' rights.

The idea of drafting a charter of victims' rights is not new. It has been around since the mid 1970s. I have to wonder what more a Canadian charter would provide than the UN charter which we helped to draft and to which we adhere. Furthermore, by producing documents which are no more than empty promises, I don't think that we are showing a great deal of respect for victims.

We have to translate our words into actions by investing in concrete support, training, evaluation and research programs where the need exist. I have been working on a volunteer basis for the past 10 years in this area and I am firmly convinced that this is the route we must take.

.1500

[English]

Mr. Maloney: The issue of parental responsibility comes up from time to time. How do you envisage parental responsibility vis-à-vis victims? Do you think it's a good thing or a bad thing, and how do we make parents more responsible? Can we make parents responsible for the acts of their child?

[Translation]

Ms. Gaudreault: I believe that parents must assume some responsibility for the actions of young offenders, but we must see these parents also as people who need help.

I was surprised by the comments in the Jasmin Report on the manner in which the justice system for young offenders deals with parents. They are shown very little consideration and much blame is placed on them. Parents are in fact victims. There is a great deal of similarity in the way in which parents and victims are treated. Basically, they are painted as the guilty party. They feel blamed and left out. They don't know what's going on either.

If we want to increase parental responsibility, we must be respectful and open-minded where they are concerned. Blaming them and taking a hardline approach is not the way to resolve the situation. That is our position. This shouldn't come as a surprise because we have often said that our group is rather moderate and that our approach is qualified.

We see ourselves as persons working within the justice system where rights must be reconciled, not opposed. Our system needs to be made more humane. Victims need more space, more rights, and more consideration, but this is not a mathematical equation. We can't take away victims' rights and give them to offenders and vice versa.

[English]

The Chair: I want to thank you for your intervention. It was very helpful.

We'll rise now for a couple of minutes to give our next witnesses a chance to get comfortable at the table.

.1502

.1510

The Chair: Let's go back on the record.

We welcome Mr. Rose, who is representing himself.

Mr. Rose, our normal procedure is that if you want to make a statement, you may. You will then be asked questions.

Mr. Maurice Rose (Individual Presentation): The only statement I have to make is what I have here in both languages, French and English: introduce myself, say what happened to my son, what happened to the kids involved, and what I have done since then.

I have appeared before many committees...including phase one of Bill C-37, Bill C-12, and all the changes you have here with the Young Offenders Act. I have spoken to the Senate and to the House.

As I said before, I don't see any changes. I'm being honest with you. No changes will do me as a victim and victims I have spoken to....

The Chair: Is that your opening statement?

Mr. Rose: That's the opening statement, Madam. I'm just a victim of the Young Offenders Act. I'm a crusader against the Young Offenders Act. That's my feeling.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. St-Laurent, do you have any questions?

[Translation]

Mr. St-Laurent: That was a rather brief statement. Several witnesses have spoken about all kinds of hypothetical situations. You may have heard some of them. How do you feel about the idea of bringing the victim and the offender closer together in an effort to prevent in the long term an increase in violent behaviour?

In a case like yours, we're talking about a murder. It's a very delicate subject, but we have to think about what is going to happen later. What kind of solutions do you envisage? How far could we go to find ways to lower the youth crime rate?

[English]

Mr. Rose: To answer your question, Mr. St-Laurent, my solution to the whole thing is that we put down, as I said before, a stiffer sentence. I'm not saying to lock a kid up for 25 years and throw away the key. I haven't done that yet. But I think you should look at a lot of things that are going on. If we have stiffer sentences, it will stop.

.1515

I refer to cases here in Beaconsfield, such as the one with Mrs. Ida Rudy. I know a number of cases where the kid walked into court and it was all a big joke. He walked away with three years under the old - it was three years then.

The victims had no say in anything. I was a victim. I had no say in anything either.

I think we have to look at the idea of trying to help these kids and rehabilitate them. I think we should put more toward helping these kids and not turn around and say we can't do anything for them.

To answer your question in another way, I'll give you a specific case of what happened here in one school last year. A young fellow apparently tore everything up in school. He was very outrageous. The police came and put handcuffs on the young fellow. They took him away. Then they turned around and said they couldn't help him until the following October. He couldn't get an appointment to be helped until the following October.

I just feel that we have to do more. We're not doing enough for these kids today.

[Translation]

Mr. St-Laurent: In your opinion, should victims be consulted prior to sentencing or during the judicial process? As a victim, you seem to want to be consulted at some point. At what point in the process and why? It's one thing to want to be consulted, but it would have to be justified at the level of the court.

[English]

Mr. Rose: I don't think the judges are being consulted. I think a victim's impact statement on a young offender.... Of the three juveniles in my son's case, I was in court for all cases. Up to four cases, I was in court. In one case I saw a social worker with a file on a kid that the social worker couldn't carry. The judge turned around and said he didn't have time to deal with that. This kid was given three months.

The kid that was charged with first degree in my son's case.... This is documented proof. I have proof that the crown prosecutor walked over to the kid's lawyer and said, ``Hey, make sure we get this kid three years; we'll drop it down to involuntary manslaughter''. This almost ruined the case of the adult....

We should be consulted on these cases. Again, sometimes I blame the law, but sometimes I also blame the crown prosecutor and the judges in these cases.

[Translation]

Mr. St-Laurent: Do you favour the idea of publishing the names of young offenders? I'm not talking about first-time young offenders, but rather, as you said, the ones with such voluminous files that one person alone can't carry them. Do you agree with this idea? Do you believe that it would deter young offenders in some way?

[English]

Mr. Rose: Yes, I would. Publishing their names would be a way to deter these young offenders. I have documented cases...that if these kids had been publicized, we wouldn't have the problem we have. Once you publicize the name, the parents of these kids....

I don't say it's always the parents' fault. It's a joke to me when people come before you from organizations saying that the kid comes from a broken home and stuff like this. That's the biggest cop-out we ever get. I think you know that yourself.

Yes, if the names of these kids were publicized, it would stop an awful lot. That's one thing I did on the first petition I circulated. I'd like to have the names of people doing sexual, violent crimes released to the public.

I can give you documented.... I live in a duplex in Lachine. Three houses up from me I know for a fact that this kid has a record, which is not very small. How many people know it on my street?

I agree, yes, that it's not for first-time offenders. I'm not saying that a kid today, a first-time offender, is going to walk out and rob a store or do something. I'm not saying to crucify him.

.1520

You can turn a kid around. I don't care who you are. I'm highly involved in hockey. I have my class IV for coaching hockey. In baseball, I coach kids from so high. I have my little granddaughter now.

It's like you say: print the name of the third- or fourth-time offender. If the parents don't like it, that's their problem. Print the kid's name. When this kid's name is up, then maybe people will turn around and say that maybe the kid will think about it.

But until we do something, no, I'm not in full agreement with this law at all. I'm sorry, I'm not in full agreement until we can do something. I don't need this for my health. In 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, and 1995, that's what I did. I don't need it.

[Translation]

Mr. St-Laurent: Clearly, you are a very energetic person. I would tend to say that you are also very angry. I can understand that and I am not judging you. Would you be prepared to meet with the young offenders who killed your son?

[English]

Mr. Rose: To answer your question, quite frankly, I already did that in court. In one of the kid's cases, in juvenile court in Saint-Denis and Bellechasse, the father came up to me and put his hand out. He told me he was very sorry about what happened. I turned and walked away. At that time you have anger in you. I just walked away from the whole thing. But I did see the three children - at that time I called them kids - who killed my son.

Was I inclined to meet them? No. I wouldn't have the temperament. I watched these kids in court sitting down to be charged with murder. In my son's case, they played with their fingernails and joked when the judge talked in both languages. They joked about it.

I was a Cape Bretoner by trade, a Maritimer. I'm a Québécois. I've lived in Quebec for more than 38 years. I'm a Quebecker. No, I wouldn't have the patience to meet these kids because I would be scared of what I would do or say. That's being truthful and honest with you.

But I have met kids since my son's death. I have helped kids through station 13, station 11, and station 25 here in Montreal. I spoke in schools. As a matter of fact, I have maybe helped turn two kids around from station 13. There were two police officers at station 13 I spoke with. I showed them documented papers I have of what happens to kids.

Your committee has me here today along with other organizations. I would love to see you guys pull in the regular cops from anywhere in Quebec or Canada. Pull the cop in who works with this. Do you know what I mean? Every day, for 12 hours a day, this man is situated with these kids. Ask him the questions these people are giving you and see if you think you can turn these kids around if you think it's the parents.

Again, there is not enough done to help these kids. From what I've seen so far, roughly since the first court case, October 1989, when I started my crusade, I've never seen anything done to help these kids. That's being honest with you.

I'm a Quebecker, but I'm not just talking about Quebec. I'm talking about Ontario, Nova Scotia, and out west. Mr. Ramsay's sitting here. I'm talking about out west.

We have to sit down today and put a law in effect to say.... Don't take a kid and say he committed a murder so he's going to jail for 25 years and we're going to leave him there. No, I don't want that. Don't get me wrong. I'm saying here today that I don't want it. Maybe people here today are saying they do want it, but I don't. I want to see a kid helped. I don't want to see a kid's life taken away from him.

Don't get me wrong, though. I lost my son through three kids who murdered him. There is nothing I'd love better than to hear this judge say they're getting 25 years. But better people have prevailed.

I taught kids. You have to sit down today and give it back to them. Give them something back to show that we care. That's what we have to do today, but I don't think we're doing it.

I don't think organizations are trying. You have organizations appearing before you who say they want a pat on the back. I was asked to join organizations from across Canada for a crusade for victims. I will help any victim. I already did. I want nothing to do with any organization. As you can see, my name is my name. There's no organization. I want nothing to do with an organization because I don't believe in organizations. I think organizations want a pat on the back. I think we have to go back to the victims and say let's help these kids, let's do something for them.

.1525

Quebec is doing a good job in a way, but in another way I'm not satisfied. I have nothing against them. If I'm talking about Ontario, it's just as bad. I'm telling you right now, sir, if you ever want to see documented cases, I'll show them to you. If you read them, you would turn around and say that across Canada we don't have it.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Ramsay, ten minutes.

Mr. Ramsay: Thank you, Mr. Rose, for your testimony. I have a number of questions.

We're talking about impact statements in the young offenders' court. Would you support victims having the right to submit a written testimony as well as appear in person and submit oral testimony if they chose to do that, or would you restrict it to written submissions?

Mr. Rose: It takes an awful lot for a victim to stand up and face the person who committed the crime. But if you have it, yes, I think that if a person is in front of a judge, maybe the judge would pay more attention to the victim's impact statement, not a written one. That's being honest with you. I've seen that when a person is standing in court and giving a statement...I think the judge takes more into consideration.

Mr. Ramsay: As you say, it's tough to deal with those emotions. Perhaps that's one way the court doesn't have to deal with them - by the impact statements on a 745 application. I understand they can make an impact statement under the new bill but it has to be written.

It's a different situation when we have looked at sentencing circles, where a sentencing circle involves the victim as well as the offender - not only the victim but the victim's family - where there is no disclosure within that sentencing circle. Community members can be there and participate.

The judge from Saskatchewan who appeared before our committee testified that sometimes it's an extremely emotional two or three hours. He has heard some offenders indicate they'd sooner serve the time than go through that. Yet at the same time the testimony we've heard and other information I've received indicate that is the beginning of the healing process on both sides, not only for the victim and the victim's family but also for the offenders.

You'd better believe the three who murdered your son have been hurt. They've hurt themselves. Maybe they put on a show in the courtroom and maybe they were hardened to that point, but there will come a day when they will realize the injury they've done to themselves by murdering your son.

We're going to be looking closely at the sentencing circles as we get out west where they're being used, particularly in the Yukon. The whole principle is that you must face the people you've injured, although it's not a panacea because in most cases without the consent of the victim they will not move a case into a sentencing circle.

In a case such as yours, if you weren't willing - and I don't imagine sentencing circles would ever be held for murder, but if it was less than that - or prepared to participate, then it would put into question whether a sentencing circle was applicable to that particular event.

Have you heard about the sentencing circles and some of these community resolutions of offences? If you have, what do you think of them?

Mr. Rose: I heard a bit when I was talking to Mr. Rock a few times about a few things that were coming up in the new bills and everything.

I'd like to get back to one question you asked before when you mentioned the three kids who killed my son. One kid was sentenced to three months; he spent a month in detention. One kid was sentenced to six months; he spent two months in detention. One kid was sentenced to three years for involuntary manslaughter; he spent nine months. The three kids who killed my son were back on the street with maybe about two weeks in between and then they were back in.

.1530

Getting back to victim impact statements, the province of Ontario has them and the have them out west, but in the province of Quebec we don't have victim impact statements.

Mr. Ramsay: I think the impact statements I have read about have been restricted to written statements, so we've moved that far in some areas as far as impact statements are concerned.

Mr. Rose: I don't think a written statement is worth the paper it's written on sometimes, because if the victim is standing in front of the judge, the judge will take more into consideration. Maybe the kids will give more consideration to what they did.

I sat in court for the trial of the Beaconsfield murders and there was no victim impact statement in that either.

Mr. Ramsay: There was no statement other than what the crown prosecutor presented.

Mr. Rose: That's it. As far as I'm concerned, the crown prosecutor did not do his job there. The three of them ended up with three years.

Mr. Ramsay: Then how do you feel about victim impact statements?

Mr. Rose: I think we should have them across Canada. I think it should be the law.

But as you were saying before, and I think Mr. St-Laurent said the same thing, sometimes victims can't go through it. Don't make a victim go into court to face the people who maybe, as you say, murdered one member of his or her family. My wife, son and daughter have never been involved in what I'm doing, and I don't think they could take it. Again, if the victim can go into court and talk, maybe the kid will think twice about stuff.

Mr. Ramsay: You mentioned that you don't belong to a victims' group. Why not? Have you been invited to join?

Mr. Rose: Yes, I've been invited by at least 25 or 30 organizations across Canada because of the impact I have had. I don't want a pat on the back for what I did, but I hope I had an impact and can have some of these laws changed. I hope I can still have an impact. I have had the names released. But I'm not interested in joining because I find that a lot of organizations want a pat on the back.

Mr. Ramsay: What do you mean by that?

Mr. Rose: Do you remember last year on September 27 there was an organization for victims' day in the House on Parliament Hill?

Mr. Ramsay: Yes.

Mr. Rose: Stewart, a guy from out west, organized that. He came to me and asked me to give him a hand with it. So we got the permit to hold this thing for victims across Canada. All we got was slack from four or five organizations saying we had no right to hold a victims' day because everybody at that time was involved across Canada, including Quebec. I have all the stuff at home. We asked organizations to come in with us and help victims. The idea wasn't for anybody to get a pat on the back. Four or five organizations criticized us that day.

Mr. Rock came out that day. Mr. Gray came out that day and spoke. Your own leader came out. Mr. Manning came out. We had a lot of people out. The Bloc Québécois came out and spoke to the people. We were still criticized for trying to hold something.

Why would you want to belong to an organization of victims when the right hand can't get along with the left hand because the right hand is trying to do something and the left hand says no, let's try to go this way?

I was highly involved in hockey and baseball, as I said before. I was president, vice-president, and everything. I find if you want to do something, the only way you can do it is one on one. I don't have to answer to anybody about what I want to say. I am outspoken sometimes. I did national TV shows. I spoke in the New York legislature. I spoke in the Vermont legislature. I spoke in Florida about the Young Offenders Act in Canada, and never once did I condemn the Young Offenders Act to anybody when I spoke in the States. I was asked to go on the Oprah Winfrey show. I went on every possible TV talk show here in Canada.

I don't believe in organizations.

Mr. Ramsay: What would you recommend in terms of changes to the Young Offenders Act? Do you have three or four recommendations?

.1535

Mr. Rose: Yes, I have three of them.

Number one, release the names. This is the biggest purpose we have.

Number two, put it up to 25 years. Don't necessarily give a kid 25 years. We'll stop it. We'll stop things.

If I dare, number three.... When a kid is picked up by a cop - I said cop, but I should say policeman - he is turned over to the juvenile authorities. They take him to court. I know from documented cases that this kid is taken and you don't know what happens to him. Two days later the same policeman picks up this kid and the policeman doesn't know if he's coming or going. We have no interpretation from the day this kid is turned over by the policeman until the next day when he is picked up.

I have documented proof of this. One kid was picked up at station 11 and two days later the same policeman picked him up for a break and enter. The policeman didn't know what was going on. He looked up his file and turned it over to social services and youth detention.

Also, when a kid is charged with a break and enter - a B and E - the first time, he can do a second crime, a third crime, a fourth crime. He does not go back. I would like to see a situation where if you're charged with a B and E three times you stand trial three times, rather than having someone just say you did it once, go back on the streets.

This idea of alternative services is a joke. A kid steals something and signs in. He signs his name - you know about this from the Young Offenders Act - and pleads guilty to this case. He pleads guilty and is told, ``Here is 30 days to do social work or social services''. The kid doesn't even bother doing it and nobody follows up on this kid - nobody.

The Chair: Thank you.

Ms Torsney or Mr. Maloney, do you have any question?

Ms Torsney: I wanted to clarify a couple of things. You just said one of the things you wanted was a potential for a 25-year sentence. What crimes, specifically, did you mean?

Mr. Rose: Violent crimes.

Ms Torsney: Every violent crime?

Mr. Rose: Every violent crime.

Ms Torsney: Do you know if there is provision for a young person who is charged with a violent crime to be moved into adult court?

Mr. Rose: Yes. I know the provision that a young fellow can be moved if charged. I know about the provision. They can be transferred, but how many kids have been transferred under the old act?

Ms Torsney: Some people argue too many and some people argue not enough.

Mr. Rose: I think not enough.

Ms Torsney: But in some of those cases they do have an option for a 25-year sentence.

Mr. Rose: When a kid is transferred to adult court, he is given a life sentence. What does it mean? How many years does he get?

Ms Torsney: Life.

Mr. Rose: When you see it in a paper, what does it mean?

Ms Torsney: It is a sentence. Do you mean behind bars?

Mr. Rose: That's right.

Ms Torsney: For some of them it means life. Others have an option to ask for parole at 25 years. Others have an option to ask a jury to go at 15 years or some other period of time.

Mr. Rose: Do you have any documented proof that a kid transferred to adult court was given a life sentence and got 25 years?

Ms Torsney: We could certainly find you some cases.

Mr. Rose: Could you give me some documented proof?

Ms Torsney: This would be in first-degree murder charges?

Mr. Rose: That's right.

Now can I ask you a question since you asked me one?

The Chair: Please, let Ms Torsney answer.

Ms Torsney: My question too is how do you think the possibility of a young person being convicted in either court system and the possibility of him or her being subjected to a 25-year sentence would work?

Here is my real question. I prefer to see fewer people victimized. Therefore, I want fewer incidents and fewer crimes committed. How do you think the 25-year potential for a violent or a first-degree murder will prevent this from happening?

Mr. Rose: Then a kid will think twice about pulling a gun or pulling a knife when he's looking at 25 years, rather than three years or five years or seven years.

Ms Torsney: Then my question is this. What was the conviction for the 19-year-old who killed your son and was tried in adult court because he is an adult?

Mr. Rose: He was convicted of involuntary manslaughter because the crown prosecutor in juvenile went after involuntary manslaughter for the kid who murdered my son. So he couldn't be charged with first-degree murder. He got seven years, thanks to the job the crown prosecutor did.

Ms Torsney: This was in the children's cases versus in the young adult, because he was convicted of manslaughter?

Mr. Rose: It was because the crown prosecutor and the judge and the lawyer of the young offender got together. They said if we go with involuntary manslaughter this kid will get three years. The crown prosecutor could not charge the adult with first-degree murder. He had to charge him with manslaughter.

.1540

Ms Torsney: Maybe later one of the lawyers would explain how that could work. I'm not a lawyer.

The other issue you raised is that you wanted the publication of all names of young offenders who had been charged with crimes or convicted of crimes. I'm not sure which. I'd like you to clarify.

Secondly, I wonder how you think this will allow people to protect themselves. For instance, how would you deal differently with the young offender who lives in your building? Or how would your son have dealt differently with the people who killed him if he had known they were young offenders?

Mr. Rose: Number one, in my son's case he got on a bus and these kids got on a bus, so I don't think it would have made any difference for him. Number two, I think if these kids' names were published the country would be far better off.

Ms Torsney: You don't think someone may think he is a big man among his friends?

Mr. Rose: Well, if he thinks he is a big man...at least his name is published because of the crime he committed and people will know. This would give people the right to know.

As sure as I'm sitting here and everybody is sitting here, you can have a kid living next door to you who is only 17 years old. He can have a record as long as his arm for any number of offences. You don't know and I don't know, unless you've got access to files.

Ms Torsney: Of course the other problem is you could be living next door to a 17-year-old who has never been charged or convicted and has been doing the exact same thing.

Mr. Rose: I know that.

Ms Torsney: The publication doesn't really help.

Mr. Rose: I think publication would help us 100%.

Mr. St-Laurent brought up a good question. You have a kid who is convicted four times under the Young Offenders Act. Publicize his name and hold those offences against him. In the United States, if a young fellow has committed a young offenders' offence and he is picked up after he turns 18, this record is sitting in front of the judge. Everything is printed in the paper, including the fact that this kid has a record as a young offender. Here in Canada we can't do this.

Ms Torsney: Yes, you can do it here.

Mr. Rose: I've never seen it used yet.

Ms Torsney: Okay.

I don't know if you have any other questions, Mr. Maloney.

The Chair: Mr. St-Laurent, did you have any other questions? You have five minutes.

[Translation]

Mr. St-Laurent: Mr. Rose, did you have any trouble getting assistance or did you in fact get some help after your son was murdered?

[English]

Mr. Rose: I don't understand your question.

[Translation]

Mr. St-Laurent: Some witnesses spoke earlier of providing assistance to victims. You are a victim and your son was killed. Did you encounter any problems? Did you request some assistance? Did you know that assistance was available? If you made such a request, did you receive any money?

[English]

Mr. Rose: To answer your question, after my son was murdered, after the coroner's report and everything was done, I got a cheque from the Quebec government for $300 to help bury my son. We did not get any other assistance. We did not get one bit of assistance from anybody. No social worker or organization came forward to help me or help my family. This is all we heard from the government at that time. We got a cheque for $300. I sent the cheque back to them. I told them they could use it more than I could. It wasn't your government at that time.

[Translation]

Mr. St-Laurent: ...answer to a question.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Rose: This is all we got at that time, Mr. St-Laurent. We never had anybody come forward and ask my family if we wanted help. I have met with three of the justice ministers from Quebec since then, and I met lately with Mr. Bégin, and we have talked about this. I must admit he wasn't a very good help to me.

I bring this up quite often. When I speak to other victims about it, it's the same thing. What's really wrong with it, to answer your question, is people we met didn't have the same thing happen to them. They were like people going to school. As a matter of fact, one day I went with a person to meet with this lady. She was asking him questions, and I was sitting there with this gentleman who had lost his daughter. I asked the lady if this had happened to her family. She said no and that she was only learning. The two of us got up and walked out.

Mr. St-Laurent: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. St-Laurent.

Mr. Ramsay, do you have any other questions?

.1545

Mr. Ramsay: I have just a couple of quick ones.

Again, referring to some of the briefs that we have here, Jean Piaget, who is quoted in more than one brief, states:

By 12 or 13 years...a child has reached maturity. By the age of 14, a young person has all the physiological and psychological characteristics of an adult. With income from work, the end of adolescence can even occur long before the child reaches 16.

The eminent psychoanalyst Françoise Dolto, who died on August 25, 1988, wrote in her last book on adolescence that ``the legal age of majority should be 13...and...(full emancipation) should be possible starting at age 15.

Do you agree with these conclusions? What is being suggested here is that a person has developed in these areas to the point where they're accountable. They know right from wrong and should be accountable for their actions.

The suggestion from our party is the 16- and 17-year-olds, for violent offences, should go automatically to adult court. The age should be reduced from 12 to 10. The police would have the authority to act in a case such as the one where the 11-year-old raped the 13-year-old. Whether they take them into court or whether they deal with them through some other measure, at least the criminal justice system could handle criminal acts.

How do you feel about that issue?

Mr. Rose: I don't think you would get any fault with anybody in any party right now in Canada who says a 15-, 16- or 17-year-old who commits a violent crime should be transferred to adult court. I don't think any party would say no. I don't think the Liberal party, or the Bloc Québécois, or yourselves, the Reform Party, would say no to these kids being transferred. But to take a kid....

Mr. Ramsay: But there are some that will.

Mr. Rose: Yes, but I've seen a documented case of a kid 17 and a half years old who wasn't transferred to adult court. He walked into court and he got three years. I can name the people, and I can name the kids.

Mr. Ramsay: For what offence?

Mr. Rose: This was for murder, and yet this kid actually helped. In two cases, these kids actually helped to find the victims.

Mr. Ramsay: What about at the bottom end? There is -

Mr. Rose: You're talking about the case in Toronto. I have everything at home on this kid in Toronto, who is 11 years old, and helped do this criminal offence to this young girl who was 13 years old.

I'm sitting here preaching, saying let's get the 25 years in. If you have a kid who is 10 years old and commits a murder, he's looking at 25 years and it may be a first-time offence. What do you do? As I was asked before, what do we do?

What I'm saying is if we can put down the sentences, maybe we'll stop a lot of this stuff. I'm not guaranteeing we're going to stop things, but victims like myself - the rest of the victims across Canada, including Quebec here - just went through cases where we sat in court and watched a kid get three years or five years.

I'm not only talking about Quebec. I'm talking about Ontario, too, where a young fellow was transferred to adult court. Getting back to one question, I'll answer another question you asked me along the way. This kid was transferred to adult court. He was given a life sentence, which includes 11 years. He was sent to a youth detention centre in Toronto. The kid turned 21 years old and he applied for parole. This kid got out. He is living in London, Ontario right now. He is going to Fanshawe College in London, paid for by the correctional centre.

Now how do you think we as victims look at this idea of transferring a kid and giving a life sentence, then all he gets is 11 years, and this kid now is going to Fanshawe College? Do you want the names? Does anybody have a fax machine? Give me your fax machine numbers and I'll send it all to you.

He just got out. The Quebec parole board walked in. Rather than have this kid go to adult penitentiary, they just send him to a halfway house in London, Ontario. I just came back from London and I was at the halfway house. The kid is going to Fanshawe College, all paid for by our good old corrections centre.

How do you think this makes me feel, and other victims here feel, talking about these people?

The Chair: I would just like to correct something. Correctional Services Canada doesn't pay for university.

Mr. Rose: Somebody in the government is paying for it.

.1550

Ms Torsney: You could get us the name and give it to the clerk.

Mr. Rose: I have it at home. It's all documented at home. I'll tell you the name of the young girl who was murdered in Toronto. It was Carrie Pinard, Bob Pinard's daughter. The kid was transferred to adult court, where he was given 11 years for first-degree murder.

Ms Torsney: Was he given a life sentence or was he given 11 years?

Mr. Rose: It was like a life sentence, but it was only 11 years. He was given 11 years.

As far as you go with a life sentence, a man in Calgary lost his son in a schoolyard and the guilty kid was given a life sentence. It was Stu Garrioch - I think you know him. The guilty kid was given a life sentence for murdering his kid, but he served only seven years and now he's back on the street.

So when a kid is transferred to adult court, your life sentence means monkey. That's why I say put in the 25 years and let's look at that.

Ms Torsney: Behind bars?

Mr. Rose: That's right.

The Chair: Mr. Rose, I want to clarify just two things as a point of information. You've used the term ``involuntary manslaughter'', but such a charge is not now and never has been possible in Canada.

Mr. Rose: There was a charge of voluntary manslaughter in my son's case.

The Chair: No. There's no such thing. I'm just explaining to you, sir, that in the Criminal Code or anyplace else the only charge could be manslaughter. He could be convicted of manslaughter, but we don't have a charge of involuntary manslaughter.

Mr. Rose: Well, he was charged with voluntary manslaughter in my son's case, and that's the reason why the adult couldn't be charged.

If you want to give me your fax number, I've got all the papers at home, the Gazette, the Journal of Montreal. I'll send it to you, along with the judge's name.

The Chair: Its being in the newspaper doesn't make such a thing correct, sir.

I just want to clarify this for the record, because we don't want the record of our hearing to be inaccurate. I think you should know that if a person is convicted as a young person and they have a record as a young person, if they then turn 18 and are convicted of something else in adult court, the youth record is read into the adult court. It would be highly improper, quite frankly, for a crown attorney, on sentencing, if he had the information, not to inform the court of the record.

I guess better words would be ``highly irregular''.

I can assure you that, certainly in the courts where I prosecuted, a young offender's record would be read in if the record was still viable.

Mr. Rose: Well, right now we've got a case going on here in Montreal where the kid is being charged as an 18-year-old and he has a record as a young offender but it has not been introduced.

The Chair: No, Mr. Rose, it would be introduced as part of the sentencing if the person was convicted. If this case is still going on, it might not be the appropriate time for it to be introduced.

Mr. Rose: I attend a lot of cases....

I know what you're saying.

The Chair: I'm just trying to clarify for you.

Mr. Rose: I'm not trying to sit here being an outspoken person, like an addict who wants to see a kid taken and thrown in jail. As I said before, I have appeared before your committee before and they know my manner of speaking. But I'm coming from the victim's side. I'm not coming from an association that sits down in front of you people.

The Chair: Mr. Rose, I'm not trying to argue with you; I'm just trying to clarify those two points, because I don't want to leave them unanswered on the record. I don't think it would be fair.

Anyway, thank you.

We'll rise for a few moments until our next witnesses are ready.

Mr. Rose: Thank you very much.

Ms Torsney: Thank you.

.1554

.1605

The Chair: We're back.

We have with us from the Association of Youth Centres of Quebec Mr. Claude Bilodeau, who is the director general; Michael Godman, director for youth protection; and Lucie Delorme, coordinator for young offenders.

Welcome. If you have a statement to give, we'll receive that and then we'll ask questions. You determine the time; the more statements, the fewer questions. We favour questions but you may favour statements. We'll leave it to you.

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Bilodeau (Director General, Association des centres jeunesse du Québec): We represent the Association des centres jeunesse du Québec, an organization which groups together youth centres in 16 Quebec regions. The centres provide services in such areas as youth protection, the rehabilitation of young offenders, child placement and adoption. The 16 centres are grouped together under one administrative entity in Quebec.

This organization was founded because of the belief in Quebec that the job of director of youth protection and of provincial director, as provided for in the Young Offenders Act, should be held by one single individual.

In adopting this approach, the legislator had two goals in mind. Firstly, he was affirming the philosophy whereby regardless of the nature or origin of their problems, young people and their families are always in need assistance and support. Secondly, he was seeking to put in place an integrated system whereby all young persons in trouble, whether they need to be protected or simply to face up to their responsibilities, would be able to rely on a wealth of knowledge, expertise, resources and services.

This model, which aims to make young offenders responsible for their actions, reflects a particular approach to treatment and intervention. However, the goal is also to rationalize and make optimum, efficient use of available resources.

Before going over these issues in further detail, I would like to recall very briefly a few of the issues that we discussed in the brief submitted to your committee in September 1995 on Phase II of the review process, which came on the heels of a brief submitted in 1994 on Bill C-37. We believe these policy issues are essential and we would like to restate them at this time.

The Young Offenders Act is a delicately balanced piece of legislation. It is a sound, fair and equitable law. It attempts to strike a balance between these principles and objectives, namely protecting society on the one hand, and recognizing on the other hand that young offenders have special needs, that they are at a particular stage in their development and that it is still possible to change them and to have them adopt socially acceptable behaviours.

This balance, which gives the legislation its cohesion and strength, is extremely delicate. Changing one of the law's components may appear to be a complex undertaking.

We want to be very clear on this point. If your true objective is to guarantee better protection for society in the long run and to make the justice system more effective in its handling of young offenders, you must not tinker with the legislation's format.

If we want to correct the system's current shortcomings, it is not the principles, but rather the approach that needs to be addressed. We repeat that a way must be found to reduce delays which are calculated in months, delays which impede each step in the judicial process and which compromise the trust that young people, parents and citizens alike have in the system.

We must also ensure greater cohesion and complementarity between the various levels, services and workers in the social, public security and justice fields.

At every stage in the social and judicial process, we must make a conscious decision to involve parents. In our view, such action must be taken rather than merely encouraged. Once this decision has been made, parents should be given the opportunity to get involved at every stage of the process and they should be given the necessary support in order to take responsibility for their child.

Social and judicial stakeholders must be given the tools, training and support they require.

.1610

The public must be made aware of the real nature and scope of youth crime which, need we remind you, has by no means reached apocalyptic proportions, as some delight in saying. The public must be made aware of the difficult and often unbearable situation that too many young people face. Above all, instead of wasting our energies and resources on a strategy essentially focussed on crime control or on incarceration, we should devote our efforts to formulating a global prevention, rehabilitation and accountability strategy, one which addresses the root cause of the problem, one which will help in the long-term to lower the youth crime rate and really increase public safety. A strategy based on enforcement has already been tried and I think that it has proven to be ineffective.

We advocate a strategy based on prevention, rehabilitation and accountability. Some seem to have a strange idea of what rehabilitation entails. They think that it is incompatible with the notion of making young offenders take responsibility for their actions. They seem to confuse the rehabilitation process with the soft approach where young person has an easy time of it with educators concerned first and foremost with protecting and coddling him, just as they would a patient or a victim. Rehabilitation does not mean protecting a young offender, although we must not lose sight of the fact that in the vast majority of cases, the young persons involved have very serious emotional, family and social problems.

Rehabilitation in the case of young offenders means first and foremost making them accountable and aware of the consequences of their actions and, more generally, of the behaviour which resulted in the offence. It is an ongoing, daily process of calling into question, adapting and accepting limitations and abilities. Rehabilitation implies making a young person responsible for his own actions, even if he cannot be held accountable for the societal or family causes of his problems.

When we visit the Centre Jeunesse Montréal Cité des Prairies tomorrow, perhaps you will better understand why some young people, after beginning the rehabilitation process, sometimes ask the court to be transferred to the adult system where they believe they will be left alone. The rehabilitation of the young offender is essentially a structured, rigorous process for educators and a tough one for young persons.

We are convinced that in the long run, this is the only approach that will truly guarantee society's safety. However, as I was saying, to be relevant and effective, in many young offender cases, the process of making them responsible must focus on behaviour more so than on the actual offence committed. Behaviour and the resulting offence are conditioned by all kinds of factors, psychological as well as emotional, arising from the relationship between the young person and his parents and often, these are passed from generation to generation.

Other factors include the social and economic conditions of youths and their families as experienced on a daily basis. Basically, what we are saying is that crime often has many associated causes. Therefore, we are not going too far when we say that in order to lower the crime rate - I'm not talking about merely punishing the offender but about stopping him and preventing him from re-offending - we must also take action which addresses all of these causes. If we want to eliminate youth violence, which is often the public's main concern, it may be time for us to start thinking about the conditions that must prevail in order for young people to develop non-violent behaviours.

An effective approach aimed at making young persons responsible for their actions is part of an integrated system, of a broader approach to rehabilitating and helping young people in trouble and their families. We should look to an organization which will guarantee the complementarity of skills, expertise, intervention, resources and services, in short, of all the tools which are indispensable to bringing about change in a young person.

.1615

It is only when we have access to this global, integrated system of assistance that the process of making young offenders responsible for their actions will have any chance of succeeding and that we will be able to address the conditions that shape and condition the deviant behaviour of young people.

There is another important aspect to the alternative strategy that we advocate. Much like the current approach widely taken in the health care field, interventions that purport to be anything more than short-term solutions to problems cannot be limited to remedial measures.

As far as we are concerned, the remedial approach, in the social as well as in the health care field, will never resolve the problems of a community. We must take it further, adopt a case-by-case approach and expand our knowledge. Researchers in the health as well as in the social services fields agree that remedial measures alone are not enough. Prevention implies intervention on another level.

I would like to take this one step further. If we truly want to deal effectively with youth crime, we must learn to see the forest for the trees, that is stop focusing exclusively on the actions of a particular young offender and begin seeing the bigger picture, namely the environment and living conditions of young persons. In short, we have to get a clear picture of delinquency, not just a picture of the young offender.

We will succeed in this endeavour not only by doing research and conducting studies, but above all by undertaking initiatives as a community to deal with factors which, in a particular neighbourhood or town, promote delinquency and help it take root.

Actions which target a community and the environment itself necessarily require the commitment of the entire community. We must look further than the usual social and law enforcement partners who intervene directly with young offenders and include all stakeholders in society who are concerned about youth welfare. In particular, schools, recreational agencies, municipalities and parent groups have an important role to play.

This type of collective action is by no means utopia. Similar initiatives are springing up everywhere. After getting together to assess the situation, partners in a given town or city agree on a specific target and formulate a strategy to meet their objective.

The situation may involve dropping out of school, violence, drug trafficking, membership in a street gang. Most of the time the target is limited to a particular territory, a street, a neighbourhood, a village. The strategy most often makes use of a range of tools, from general public information and awareness campaigns to very specific attempts to tackle a particular problem.

Basically what you have is a community taking action, not to punish the young offenders in their midst but to create the conditions and provide the resources that will offer local youngsters more attractive alternatives than breaking the law.

Criminal behaviour, I want to stress, is built up, constructed, nurtured. The reverse is equally true. There are conditions that foster the emergence of delinquency, risk factors, and there are preventive factors, family and social conditions that foster a child's normal social development.

We said just now that repression alone was not an adequate response. We said that rehabilitation, while necessary, was not sufficient either, and had to be rounded out by a preventive approach.

What we are saying now is that neither rehabilitation nor prevention can be limited to a case-by-case approach, to treating the individual. Individual intervention in its turn has to be rounded out by intervention on a broader scale, through group action by entire communities that mobilize to support parents and eliminate the causes of delinquency.

Many examples of this kind of action could be cited, starting with Montreal's "Connais-tu ma gang?" [Do you know my gang?] program, which works with youngsters who belong to street gangs. The police, the social services and all the organizations concerned have been able to get together and support parents in a way that counteracts the gang phenomenon. We'll be going even further in a neighbourhood in Saint-Jérôme in the Laurentians, where one community has decided to target the problem of dropping out of school, which often leads to delinquency.

After thinking the problem through together, people came to an agreement on an analysis and the community decided that to solve the problem it would have to be tackled from the early grades on, with all the possible services brought into play, because from the early grades it is possible to identify the youngsters who will drop out in high school, who will have major problems or who will turn to violence as a way of resolving conflicts.

.1620

That's exactly the approach we are proposing to you for combatting youth crime: to continue making them face up to responsibility for what they've done, and helping them, but also to tackle the problem at its roots among the very young, to identify the little ones who are at risk.

This isn't a crackpot scheme. We can now recognize all the factors that from the earliest years pose serious risks to a child's development. We have the clinical tools to identify them. What is even more encouraging is that we have ways of intervening and correcting the effects of these factors before they become ingrained in the child or the adolescent.

The only requirement for these methods to work is that they have to be applied in time, that is, before the age of six or seven. I repeat, delinquency and behavioural problems are constructs. Every time we delay our intervention we are adding a brick to the wall.

There is no question of abandoning coercive measures, or individual treatment, or attempts to rehabilitate, where adolescents are concerned. Our tool box has to include all these means, without exception. It's often said that a 15-year-old young offender is frequently a little boy who wasn't helped in time. That isn't a reason to give up on him at 15, but it's certainly an incentive to do something for the other little boys before they reach 15.

Action is needed immediately on two fronts. We have said that intervention needs to be timely to be effective, but how is this to be done? In other words, where to start? In our opinion, action has to be on two fronts. The first of these is public opinion. It has become urgently necessary that we counter the untruths and half-truths about the scale and seriousness of youth crime that are being tossed around so wildly.

Setting aside individual cases, however shocking or exaggerated they may be, we should look at the real trends in a phenomenon that has not become any worse for a very long time. One initial way of combatting these prejudices might be to paint a more balanced portrait of our young people - to show how the immense majority of them grow up without running into any serious difficulties or ever breaking the law at all.

When you reflect that young offenders represent only 3 per cent of our youth, it shouldn't be too difficult. Moreover, we have the privilege in Canada of including among our workers in this field several researchers who have an international reputation for their work on young offenders and the difficulties experienced by children and young people.

It may be time that people like Trépannier (whom you'll be hearing from on Thursday), Leblanc, Tremblay, Steinhauer, Sigurdson, Reid, Glick and Goldstein get their day in court. There is hard scientific data on youth crime and the difficulties encountered by young people and for once ... It is difficult to say everything in 15 minutes and leave the translation -

[English]

The Chair: We're just a little worried about the interpreter. The interpreter is going so quickly that they run right out of the booth.

[Translation]

Mr. Bilodeau: There is scientific data on youth crime, and for once these data are the subject of a broad consensus among the research community. We believe that it is up to you as leaders, ladies and gentlemen of the House of Commons, to make the public aware of these data and to spread the word about them, even if in so doing you perhaps have to defy conventional wisdom in certain regions.

Speaking out in favour of the Young Offenders Act may not be a very popular thing to do, but it is something that has to be done if you care about finding real solutions to the phenomenon of youth crime.

We realize that crime among young people is not the exclusive responsibility of the Department of Justice. Because of the many dimensions it affects, society as a whole, and by extension the government as a whole, has a responsibility. Effective action against youth crime is impossible unless we think in multi-sectoral terms, not to mention the contribution of various levels of government and various government departments and ministries.

That point having been made, we have not the slightest doubt that the Department of Justice, which has the job of applying the Young Offenders Act, indeed has the responsibility to initiate the required restructuring of services for young offenders.

The Department of Justice must take the lead and launch this multi-sectoral strategy. It will of course be able to count on our active support, if its initiatives go in the direction we have indicated.

As for money: I know that in some circles it is claimed that setting up a system for prevention, rehabilitation and making the offender accountable is expensive. I would just like to recall that in Quebec, when the Youth Protection Act was passed, and in 1984 when the Young Offenders Act was passed, existing services were transformed.

.1625

But there was no massive injection of funding in 1979-80 when the Youth Protection Act was passed in Quebec. Existing services were rationalized and merged so that they could do more together. In this context, we do not regard money as an issue.

In any event, from the strictly financial point of view, what is the most sensible thing to do? Nothing? Delay any action while continuing to invest in a system geared toward repression that does not produce results, apart from increasing the social deficit? Or invest the same money in a long-term strategy to reduce criminal behaviour? Should we continue to construct problems for ourselves or should we finally make a serious effort to solve them?

We believe that the only solution to crime is to tackle the problems at their source and in an intersectoral manner; and second, to continue treating young people in difficulty on a one-by-one basis, favouring a strategy of rehabilitation in tandem with making them accept accountability for their actions. Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. St-Laurent, vous avez une minute.

[Translation]

Mr. St-Laurent: You said at the start of your statement that we shouldn't tamper with the Young Offenders Act. In other words, you have serious doubts about the Bill we are currently considering. Have you any suggestions to make, any provisions you would like to see amended?

Mr. Bilodeau: Basically, when changes were proposed to the Young Offenders Act, we felt that the fundamentals of the Act were sound. It contains everything that's necessary for us on the one hand to come to the aid of young people who can benefit from rehabilitation and on the other to refer to adult court the young people we can't help because science hasn't made enough progress to enable us to intervene, so that we have to make do with simply ensuring that society is protected, because we don't know enough to do anything else. Properly speaking we didn't want major changes to the Act.

What we wanted instead was for more attention to be paid to how the Act is applied. In the field, applying the Act poses serious problems of consistency among the public safety, justice and social services sectors. These problems affect not only the young offenders, who often don't hear anything more about what they've done until six months later, but also their parents.

I would say that basically the youth centres overall and the provincial directors we represent and the Youth Protection directors found that the Act as it stood provided adequate tools to enable us to do significant work. So we didn't necessarily want any changes at all.

Mr. St-Laurent: I understand.

You say:

It may be time that we start thinking about the conditions that need to be established so that young people can develop non-violent behaviours.

What does that mean, exactly, in concrete terms? We can read, but give us examples.

Mr. Bilodeau: It means two things. For example, in a number of violence-prevention campaigns (and we ourselves organize symposiums on violence), it is violence in and of itself that worries so many people in the adult world so greatly. Our view is that it would be better to turn the question around and ask what conditions ought to be established so that young people as a whole can develop non-violent behaviours.

There is a link to be made here with early childhood and the schools. Research has shown that it can be predicted, on the basis of children's behaviour patterns in kindergarten, and even in day care, whether they will develop major personality problems leading to violent behaviour. This is clear and it has been acknowledged everywhere.

So that's the time to intervene with those children, with their families, and to help them by providing the conditions required for them to develop ways of settling day-to-day conflicts without resorting to violence, using non-violent behaviours.

Usually, in the case of a child who enjoys respectful treatment from those around him, from his parents, a child who isn't the victim to a certain extent of certain factors, it is very rare for him to develop behavioural problems.

Basically, instead of stepping in when the damage has been done, at 12, 13, 14 or 15 years of age ... Of course we have to continue stepping in at that point, but we know now that these behaviour patterns develop between birth and the age of three or five, and that at the latest everything should be done at the elementary school level to intervene.

That's what we mean. There would be a lot fewer anti-violence campaigns if we did more to develop non-violent behaviour among children. It starts there.

.1630

Mr. St-Laurent: Fine. My next question was going to be about what you do in the schools, but you've just discussed that.

I would like you to talk about the three organizations you represent. We hear a lot about failure, but that isn't what I would like to hear you talk about today.

How would you describe your success? Can you put a number on it? Can you tell us that this many people have come under your three organizations' care and that this many of them have left in better shape?

That can't be said of prisons, for instance. In a more adult context, the social reintegration of people leaving prison isn't always very successful. Is there a recidivism rate with your organizations, and if so what is it?

Mr. Bilodeau: We look after a number of different clienteles, so we would have to specify which one. To a certain extent we can measure the effectiveness of intervention in the case of young offenders who are the subject of intervention by the Provincial Director and are in closed or open custody, on probation or sentenced to an alternative to incarceration.

Everything depends on the criteria you select. If we look just at recidivism, we could find ourselves with the case of a young person who was in a centre for a long time and afterwards commits another theft; but his stay might still have been a success by other criteria.

We have done evaluative research in the past that looked at quality. We can also measure the effectiveness of the intervention and above all the conditions that must obtain if a certain level of effectiveness in the system is to be achieved.

It's clear that the longer you wait to intervene in the process, and the older the child is, and the more he has been the subject of different sorts of treatment that may never have been coordinated - the more the success rate is complex and problematical. The earlier you step in, the better the results.

We use elements that derive both from evaluative research and from statistics, although it isn't always easy to pinpoint a case of recidivism, and all the other elements. Yes, we have instruments that allow us to evaluate to a degree our success rate, the factors that contribute to failure and those that contribute to success.

Mr. Bilodeau: We all agree that there has been no rise in the youth crime rate. At the same time, just about everyone says that the crimes being committed by young people now are in certain ways more serious.

To what do you attribute this increase in the number of serious crimes?

Mr. Bilodeau: As we said in our brief last year, there are a number of causes.

On the one hand, yes, with respect to the seriousness of the offences, there has been an increase in the number of crimes against the person as opposed to crimes against property. In Montreal, in particular, youth violence is primarily committed by young people against one another - they don't necessarily commit crimes against society in general.

Other factors also come into play. If we look at what society and the law used once upon a time to allow young people to do, if we look at teaching styles and adult supervision, it is clear that society's threshold of tolerance used to be much lower than it is today. We are more permissive with our young.

Similar behaviour occurred 10, 15 or 20 years ago but, in today's circumstances, it has certain repercussions.

Yes, there has been an increase in the proportion of offences against the person, in comparison with the number of offences against property. There has not been an increase in the number of those offences, but there has been a significant increase in the seriousness and gravity of certain situations, such as young persons in need of protection and child victims of violence in society. Poverty has also increased and, at one point or another, has influenced the behaviour of young offenders - more in day-to-day life, in reality.

Mr. St-Laurent: Earlier, you spoke of having the parents participate. Were you referring only to the parents of the victims, or did you also mean the parents of the offenders or aggressors?

.1635

Mr. Bilodeau: Both, but mainly the parents of the aggressors. In multifaceted projects like ''Connais-tu ma gang'', to which I referred, we have to decide to have the parents participate. In the process, for a great many reasons, it is very easy to forget about them.

Not even a few years ago, having the parents on the scene was not considered important. Now, we say it is important to get the parents involved. In practice, however, often we are not organized to do that. For example, we do not take into account the fact that the parents may not available during the day. How can we adapt the system so that parents can be present or responsible? First we have to decide to do it.

Second, we have to have the parents participate at all stages of the process: at the time of arrest, during detention, at the time decisions are made, and during subsequent stages.

After helping several parents of young offenders, we noted that when parents were all alone, they gave up because they could no longer handle the situation and no longer knew what to do. When we get these parents together in a group and give them back some power - in the positive sense - in relation to their young persons' behaviour, with their understanding of their young persons - and even if the young person is a gang member - , we have spectacular results: the parents get going and take charge of the situation again.

So we must decide to put our money on significant participation from them - particularly when, often, the fathers are absent - in all social issues and at all stages of the decision-making process. It is also important to provide them with the proper tools and support so that they can again assume their own responsibilities, which very often they have not wanted to abandon but in the face of which they have felt powerless and have given up because of what their young persons have done. Parents get going again; we have some absolutely fascinating experiences.

Mr. St-Laurent: Thank you very much.

Ms. Lucie Delorme (co-ordinator for young offenders, Association des centres jeunesse du Québec): I would also like to emphasize the participation of the parents of the victims in some of our preventive operations, including the ''Taxage'' operation here in Montreal. We visit the secondary schools, where we inform the young people and their parents of the existence of extortion and identify it as a crime.

In this kind of operation, we try to communicate that using extortion against other people is an offence that harms people, and that people must act. If we want to mobilize the school community so that it intervenes and puts a stop to this phenomenon, we will make young students and parents of potential victims aware.

These operations often result in an increased number of arrests for extortion offences in a given community. If potential or actual victims can report these offences and be listened to by the police, there will be an increase in arrests related to these offences.

At that point, accompaniment is also offered to the parents, so that they know what is happening to their children. We note that the parents of the victims often tend to hide the phenomenon, for fear of what might happen to their children after reporting an offence. We must also make the parents and the whole school aware of the need to intervene and take back control and the quality of life in their community if they want to counter this phenomenon.

Basically, these are preventive measures. We must mobilize the majority to address this phenomenon.

Where the victims are concerned, we are just beginning. All intervention has concentrated more on the parents of the young persons who are causing trouble, but we are beginning to do some groundwork where the victims are concerned. That is promising.

Mr. St-Laurent: Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. St. Laurent.

Mr. Ramsay, ten minutes.

Mr. Ramsay: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I wish to thank our witnesses for appearing before us today.

I'm encouraged by the resources your government puts into early detection and prevention. I think that is where the resources ought to be invested.

You recognize that there are exceptions. In your brief you sent to the committee earlier you say the following:

While we defend a special system for young offenders that comes into the picture for those between the ages of 12 and 18, as mentioned above, we must admit that there are a number of adolescents, a small number, who must be excluded from this system either because the educational interventions would be of no benefit to them or because they could prevent other young people from learning.

.1640

Of course that's what we are dealing with. We're dealing with the effort to keep youngsters out of the justice system. Then we have that small five to eight percent of those who come in contact with the justice system where rehabilitation does not seem to take any effect. So they have to be moved into adult court or be dealt with more seriously.

If a young person is sentenced to closed custody because of repeat violent offences, and if at the end of the six-month or two-year term, or whatever it might be, it is determined that individual still poses a high risk, what would you recommend the justice system do? There are two alternatives. We can keep them in longer or turn them back into society and hope they don't victimize another innocent person. Do you have any thoughts you'd like to share with the committee on that issue?

[Translation]

Mr. Bilodeau: Firstly, yes. I would point out first of all that rehabilitation is effective, whether with a young offender who has been charged and convicted or in another setting. There are some young persons for whom our knowledge is not advanced enough and whom we will be unable to help. If we already know that and major crimes have been committed, we will think about an earlier transfer to adult court because, unfortunately, we will have to concentrate on protecting society, knowing that we cannot do anything else. That is a first point.

Still concerning protection, for example, if we think that effective legislation on young offenders in a given society must go hand in hand with an effective system for youth protection in which social services and all sorts of services can intervene before children or young people commit offences, but we do not have such a system, there is a big problem. So, that system must exist beforehand, and I would say that it must also exist after the fact.

In the case of a sentence served under the YOA, if a young person were placed in a centre, if it was thought that the young person's rehabilitation had not been successful and that significant danger still remained, and if the sentence were to be continued as youth protection, we would have to invoke the fact that the young person's development was not completed or that the safety of other persons was not guaranteed. It might be possible to continue to intervene under a system of protection other than that provided for in the YOA: to obtain the same results by invoking the protection of society.

Legislation on young offenders that focuses on rehabilitation, prevention and the assumption of responsibility will be effective as long as we have a system of protection that allows us to intervene with difficult children and young people before they commit offences, as is the case in Quebec under the Youth Protection Act.

If, after offences have been committed, a more or less lengthy sentence is handed down and rehabilitation has not had the desired results, society should be able to continue to intervene with that young person under other legislation that would ensure that young person's protection or development.

[English]

Mr. Ramsay: Thank you. On page 9 of the English translation of your earlier brief you state the following:

Currently set at 12 and 18, these ages are perfectly justified and in our view should not be changed....

Professor Bala appeared before our committee and recommended that the reduction to ten years occur within the act. His rationale was that with the way things are going, we're eventually going to see 10- and 11-year-olds committing murder. This was supported by the official who briefed us. I think it was at the Syl Apps institute in Ontario. She said eventually, the way things are going, younger and younger people will be getting involved. When I asked her if she thought that one day we would see 10- and 11-year-olds committing murder, she said yes.

.1645

So why would you support provisions of an act that grants immunity from prosecution to someone who commits murder?

[Translation]

Mr. Bilodeau: Murders have been committed in society by young persons under the age of 12 years, but very infrequently.

In our brief, we say that we simply must intervene with young people who commit these offences, but we do not think, particularly in Quebec, that we must intervene under the YOA. Under the Youth Protection Act, we have all the tools we need - and more comprehensive tools - for rehabilitation, detention and intervention.

We think that any society has the power and the duty to intervene in situations where young persons commit offences of this type or any other, but not necessarily under the YOA.

We know that recently in Ontario some 10-year-olds told the judge, ''Ha, ha! You can't do anything to us.'' That would not have been possible in Quebec, because under the Youth Protection Act we have the mandate to provide protection for young persons - meaning young persons who are a danger to themselves or to others. That gives us a much broader scope for intervention than does the YOA, under which the rules of the game are different.

We absolutely must give ourselves the means to intervene amongst young people 12 years and younger, but not necessarily by using the Young Offenders Act, even in the case of a homicide.

[English]

Mr. Ramsay: Would you tell the committee the process that would be involved if someone under the age of 12 committed a murder in Quebec? What would happen?

[Translation]

Mr. Bilodeau: First of all, this situation would be brought to the attention of the Director of Youth Protection. Obviously, a murder is an extraordinary situation that must by definition be brought to the attention of the Youth Protection Director, who would then automatically remove the young person from his or her environment and put them into a rehabilitation centre, under secure custody if necessary, so that an assessment could be undertaken.

What is happening in this young person's life? What brought about the event? What does it tell us about his needs? What is the best solution? Throughout this period, young people are detained, but on youth protection terms. The term used isn't placed in custody, but rather placed in a home or centre.

They're often put in rehabilitation centres so that they can be protected, others can be protected, and so that the necessary assessment can be carried out and a long- and medium -term plan be drawn up in order to meet the young people's needs given their specific problem.

Intervention is immediate. Young people are withdrawn from society and placed in a home or centre. The intervention is about the same, but it is carried out under the Youth Protection Act which has different rules from the Young Offenders Act.

Under the Youth Protection Act, society has better tools at its disposal to meet these people's fundamental needs than under the Young Offenders Act.

[English]

Mr. Ramsay: For how long could you keep the young offender?

[Translation]

Mr. Bilodeau: Up until 18 years old.

[English]

if he's 10.

[Translation]

We can keep them for as long as they need rehabilitation. That could last until 18 years old, at the most. They're young people who can stay in rehab centres, not necessarily because they have committed offences, but because of their needs...

There are, in social terms, what are known as young chronic cases. This exists from a social viewpoint as well as from a physical health viewpoint. Young persons may benefit from using these protection services and centres until they have reached their majority.

.1650

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Maloney, did you have some questions?

Mr. Maloney: Before I get into a new line of questioning, what would happen to that child at 18 who murdered at 10 and still needed assistance, help, rehabilitation?

[Translation]

Mr. Bilodeau: To date, we have not had frequent cases of young people who were put in centres at the age of 10 years old and who at the age of 18 years old still needed help or were still considered to be dangerous to society. In principle, once they have reached 18 years old, the legislation no longer applies and the process is over. There are cases where we may go before the court to present an argument. It has happened that extensions have been granted. We have rarely had a young person who after 7,8 or 9 years still had major problems and was still dangerous. It is possible that they still require help or that they are encountering certain problems. We have not often seen young people who came into our centres at 10 years old because intervention was necessary and who were still dangerous at 18 years old. That would be the exception.

Ms. Delorme: If psychiatric help or supervision were required, other laws in Quebec, for example the Mental Patients Protection Act, would apply. We would then use rules that apply to the public as a whole and we would ask the court to order a closed treatment for a young person or an adult who needed psychiatric help.

I would just like to add to Mr. Bilodeau's answer that we feel that access to psychiatric services and centres is easier outside the ambit of the Young Offenders Act than within it. It seems to me that when an assessment is made and when a young offender is given a psychiatric diagnosis, under that law, access to psychiatric services within the centre are lost.

[English]

Mr. Maloney: In dealing with adult criminals the Minister of Justice has a new initiative - long-term offender - for individuals who perhaps need assistance; they're still deemed to be a danger to either the public or to themselves or whatever. Do you see a similar application under the Young Offenders Act?

[Translation]

Mr. Bilodeau: Society must be able to use the means it needs to intervene in situations where people are a threat to themselves or to others and it must also be able to use the necessary means to ensure their protection or society's protection, other than sentences for offences. Yes, those measures would be applied if there were no other choice.

If, after hearing expert witnesses and expertise, we believe that there is a 95% chance that the person will commit a major offence when they are reintroduced into society, then we must be able as a society to take the necessary measures, while respecting the rights and freedoms contained within the Charter. Yes, we must be able to take the necessary measures that will guarantee to this person and to society that they will not re-offend.

What other solution is there? It would depend on whether we were talking about young 18-year-olds or 25-year-olds. It would also depend on the measures that we have chosen. We have heard certain proposals recently. We would not necessarily chose them, but I believe that a society should be able to give itself the tools it needs.

[English]

Mr. Maloney: Before we leave the issue of age, there are some who feel the age should be reduced to 15 and under. What are your comments on that for the application of the act?

Mr. Michael Godman (Director, protection de la jeunesse, Association des centres jeunesse du Québec): We are still of the position that the current act has the right age in it.

.1655

As Mr. Bilodeau said earlier, we believe that for those younger children - 10, 11, etc. - we have the means, particularly in Quebec with the youth protection act, both to protect society and to provide the right kinds of intervention for that kind of young person under that act. So it is our position that the Young Offenders Act has the right ages in it now.

Mr. Maloney: You're probably not in a position to comment, but how does the Quebec youth protection act differ from similar acts in other jurisdictions, such as Ontario or Alberta?

Mr. Godman: I'm familiar with some of the acts in some of the other provinces. I would say that the youth protection act in Quebec probably has a broader base of application.

For example, Mr. Bilodeau was talking about a 10-year-old. There is a section of the act that talks about a child having a serious behaviour disturbance - that being either suicidal or homicidal - that would allow us to intervene.

From my knowledge of some of the other acts, they probably are more focused solely upon abuse, neglect, abandonment, and other such issues.

So it's a matter of there being a broader interpretation of what constitutes risk to a young person.

Mr. Maloney: I have no more questions.

The Chair: That's quite clear in Ontario, for instance. The child protection act relates to abuse and neglect and defines a child who is in need of protection in those terms rather than in behavioural terms.

Mr. Godman: We've even gone so far in our act as to consider, although not necessarily all the time, young people who are not attending school. If the school and the parents feel as if they've done everything they can, we can now impose our youth protection act to make sure that we can bring about the necessary service plans for those young people.

The Chair: That was very interesting. Thank you very much for coming. You've helped us to understand a bit better the kinds of linkages that could be in place between provincial and federal jurisdictions, which is a big problem for us.

[Translation]

Mr. Bilodeau: Thank you.

.1658

.1705

[English]

The Chair: We have with us, from the Barreau du Québec, Claude Masse, Claude Boies and Carole Brosseau. Welcome. I'm sure you've had a lot of experience in front of legislative committees, but we would ask you to outline your brief and we'll have some questions for you.

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Masse (President of the Quebec Bar): Thank you, Madam Chair. Before taking questions, we have a few brief opening remarks.

Madam Chair, members, as the President of the Quebec Bar, it gives me great pleasure to speak to you today about legislation that we do not feel is obsolete and that, as far as we can see, still meets the goals that were set out at its inception, that is, that adolescents must be held responsible for their behaviour, but to a limited degree as they are not adults and may still be dependent on other people.

Second, society has the right to be protected against any illegal behaviour, even if that behaviour is that of a minor. Finally, adolescents should benefit from the same rights as adults do with respect to law, natural justice and equality of treatment; and these rights should be guaranteed.

Before continuing my remarks about the principles and the enforcement of the Young Offenders Act, I would like to point out that the Quebec Bar has more that 17,000 members, men and women who are all lawyers registered with the Bar's roll.

In order to fulfil its mandate to act in the public interest, the Bar uses advisory committees such as the Standing Committee on Criminal Law which, by its nature, includes defence and Crown lawyers.

It also includes two experts, Ms. Nancy Moreau, the chief Crown Attorney with the Youth Court under the Quebec Ministry of Justice and Mr. Claude Boies - who is accompanying me today - who was until recently a staff lawyer with the youth division of legal aid. Mr. Boies now practises law with the Commission of Human Rights and Youth Rights. I'm also accompanied by Ms. Carole Brosseau, a lawyer with the Quebec Bar and an expert in criminal law.

Since 1984, the Bar has developed a structure, a system, that strikes a balance between our goal of protecting the public, and the other no less worthy goal of rehabilitating young offenders.

To achieve this, Quebec has decided to apply both these laws together. We believe that in that way we are in a better position to identify adolescents' problems and therefore help them. This cooperation also allows for better understanding of both systems, that is children's aid in Quebec, and the Young Offenders Act.

.1710

In social terms, the provincial director and the Youth Protection Branch director are one and the same person. In Quebec, we have developed a policy on youth and the laws must be enforced within this context.

However, Quebec has made it a point of honour to respect the rules of each jurisdiction at all times, and although there is improved communication and equivalent treatment, these two systems are treated separately.

We must not forget that the young person is learning and that intervention at an early age will be more successful in getting the young person to subscribe to the social contract, providing society with a young person who is more likely to abide by its rules.

Moreover, this approach has had positive results because when you compare the crime and violence in Quebec with that of other provinces or countries, you can see that Quebec is one of the least violent societies in the world.

Police statistics, supported by data from victimization studies, show that Quebec and the Maritimes record fewer violent crimes than Ontario and the western.

According to Statistics Canada, in 1995, Quebec had a stable crime rate, and with respect to violent crimes, while the national rate dropped by 4.1 per cent, Saskatchewan experienced an increase of more than 5.8 per cent, and Quebec recorded, for the same time period, a decrease of 7.5 per cent.

As we have already said, the Quebec system for enforcing the Young Offenders Act is very different from that found elsewhere in Canada. In order to enforce this legislation properly, you must adapt measures and interventions to the world that the young person lives in.

However, we must get across a very clear message to the young person, namely, that certain types of behaviour are not acceptable. In addition, we must act swiftly, while respecting everyone's rights, because for the young person, time is of the essence.

The approach taken by Quebec has been and will continue to be based on rehabilitation and re-education. We do not feel that repression is the most appropriate solution. Indeed, in the longterm, we feel that this approach will have the opposite effect, and we are advocating, for both present and future needs with respect to citizens and young offenders, that we maintain the current system.

As we were saying in our brief, we cannot and must not yield to blackmail and to this trend calling for more repressive measures. Moreover, regardless of the repression we may want to impose upon our young people, we will never be able to completely eradicate the extreme and odious cases.

On the other hand, however, we must not make hostages of the many young people who, under the current system, would probably be able to find their way. If the work of your committee results in new ways of improving the current system, the Quebec Bar would not object to such alternatives. The Bar is always open to proposals of this nature.

Nevertheless, we do not feel that the current crime situation, particularly in Quebec, warrants amendments to the law itself. On the contrary, we would instead consider the possibility of exporting outside Quebec our approach which, up until now, has proved itself.

In order to clarify certain points that were drawn to our attention during the public consultation, I would like to turn the floor over to Mr. Claude Boies who, like me, will try to convince you of the merits of the Act and of Quebec's approach in enforcing it.

Mr. Boies.

Mr. Claude Boies (lawyer, Quebec Bar): Members of the Standing Committee on Justice, as our president Mr. Masse has just said, I will try, in a few words, to convince you of the merits of the current Act, in its present form. Over the past years, it has been amended, irrespective of the wishes of the Bar.

You will no doubt recall that the Quebec Bar did not agree with the adoption Bill C-37. We had called for the bill to be withdrawn forthwith. Unfortunately or fortunately, as some would say, the bill was adopted with a few amendments and that in turn led to several amendments to the Young Offenders Act.

Fundamentally, the Bar believes that the problem does not reside in the Act itself, but in the way that it is enforced. As far as this matter is concerned, we did our homework in Quebec, questioning the way that we enforce the Act so that we could make our system as effective as possible.

.1715

I am being a bit ironic, but I would say that it's like a VCR. Everybody has a VCR at home. Unfortunately, very few people know how to make full use of it. People use their VCR to view films rented from a video store and it stops at that. Very few people read the instruction manual to find out exactly what their VCR can do.

The situation pertaining to the Young Offenders Act is not really any more complicated than that. We get the impression that we are not really getting all of the advantages and benefits from this legislation. In Quebec, different committees tried to evaluate, in detail, each provision of the Act and to determine how to get the most out of it. Believe us, the proof that we did this lies in the fact that we make maximum use of this Act.

As a result of the work done by a task force that you are probably aware of, we produced two reports, one following the evaluation of the Youth Protection Act, a provincial law, and the other wfollowing the evaluation of a federal law, the Young Offenders Act. This was an evaluation of the way that this Act was enforced. The conclusions were themselves evaluated and analyzed by each of the various stakeholders.

Take, for instance, a document called Plan d'action ministériel pour le secteur des jeunes contrevenants (Ministerial action plan for the young offender sector). Further to the Jasmin Report, officials from the Health and Social Services Ministry examined each of the recommendations so that they could gain greater insight and re-evaluate the process used for implementing the alternative measures provisions, in order to reduce delays to a minimum, and other things. As our president said earlier, time is of the essence when you are dealing with young people.

Following the release of the Jasmin Committee's first report, we then dealt with the problems pertaining to the representation of children and the role of the lawyer. The Bar set up a special committee to evaluate the role played by the lawyer in the areas of youth protection and young offenders and adopted a resolution calling upon every lawyer working in the youth field to re-evaluate the way that he or she intervenes with a young client who is being prosecuted under the Young Offenders Act.

At this point, I would like to deal with two topics. Since time is important for both you and us, I will base my comments on two points. The first issue concerns alternative measures.

In 1993, nearly 50 per cent of the files submitted to the Attorney General, in Quebec, were referred to the provincial director for alternative measures. We later learned, and we are still talking about 1993, that approximately 35 per cent of the applications to institute proceedings retained by the Attorney General had been subject to alternative measures and that only 3 per cent of these had been considered "failures". What more can we say about the extent of this success and the impact of such measures?

These measures cover things such as reimbursing victims, meetings to improve the young person's social skills, and community works. With these types of measures, we do much more than simply making the young person accountable for his actions; we also get the community involved, we develop certain skills, we work on the young person's self-esteem and socialization.

We can also see how this program has had an impact on cases referred to the court. By sending more cases to the Alternative Measures Program, we have fewer cases before the court and therefore more time to spend on these particular cases, which in turn means that the cases referred to the court are heard more quickly.

I can even tell you that, in Quebec, the results of the Alternative Measures Program have been so positive that recently we introduced a corresponding program for adults. We created a similar alternative measures program for adults.

There is a good example demonstrating the failure to use the means provided by the YOA in other provinces, where it was decided unilaterally not to take advantage of this opportunity provided by the Young Offenders Act.

The Supreme Court stipulated that, in legal terms, the absence of such a program is constitutional, however we feel that the Act is a whole and that its philosophy must be interpreted or evaluated in accordance with each and every one of its provisions.

.1720

The Alternative Measures Program is, without a doubt, one of the main reasons why such positive results have been achieved in the area of youth crime in Quebec. This program, with its rapid intervention aimed at making the young offender accountable for his or her actions to the full extent, reaches the youth quickly and correctly targets the type of measures that will serve as an immediate deterrent. In other words, we don't wait for the third, fourth of fifth offence to occur before intervening legally. Right from the start, through an intervention that is as rapid and minimal as that provided by the Alternative Measures Program, we reach the target relatively fast.

At times, it is clear that this process can cause delays in a case being handled through the Young Offenders Act. As I said earlier, we have tried, through an action plan, to evaluate every step of the intervention to minimize the time spent intervening with the youth as much as possible, to ensure that if this stage of the Alternative Measures Program does not achieve the desired results, we will be able to, as quickly as possible, refer the matter to the judicial system.

The second point that I would like to discuss deals with the validity of the minimum and maximum age limits established for criminal liability.

Our position is in line with the traditional position taken by the Quebec Car, I would even say the traditional position taken by Quebec, though not necessarily by all of the stakeholders. In summary, I could simply tell you: Do not, above anything else, change the age limitations for the Young Offenders Act.

Our position does not arise from stubborness; rather we are basing it on what is known about human development and on the practical aspects of enforcing criminal law when dealing with children.

In Quebec, the age limit was 14 before the adoption of the Young Offenders Act. Under the Loi sur la protection de la jeunesse, the Youth Protection Act, the provincial legislator had established that criminal responsibility began at the age of 14.

With the adoption of the Young Offenders Act in 1984, we were forced, despite the grumblings from stakeholders in Quebec, to make certain changes. More particularly, we had to re-evaluate the age limits and conclude that, in accordance with the implementation of the Young Offenders Act and knowledge of the various stages of child development, it would perhaps be appropriate to drop the age to 12. We made some changes to the resources that we provided to children and we adjusted to these amendments that lowered the age limit.

Today, once again, you want to lower the minimum age limit for enforcing the Young Offenders Act. In our opinion, to do so would be to disregard a certain number of factors that we feel are extremely important.

Just as a toddler cannot be taught to ride a bicycle because in fact he is physically unable to do so - any pediatrician will explain why a child cannot pedal before he is at least three years old - the child who is under the age of twelve is not able to grasp what the judicial system is about or to understand the legal concepts that may be at issue in his case. This parallel is easy to draw. We could try to get a child under the age of 12 to grasp these nuances and all of these concepts, but this objective will be impossible to achieve. At least this is what the Quebec Bar thinks.

Studies have shown that the understanding of the legal system increases with age, which means that there are different distinctions between the steps... For example, at 14 years of age, a remand motion can be filed concerning a young offender.

Naturally, lowering the age to 10 will not settle any future cases of a child of eight years of age who commits a murder. Sooner or later, strange as it may seem, we may face a situation where an eight- or nine-year-old child commits a murder. We're not solving the problem by lowering the age to ten.

For the purpose of discussion, let us suppose a 10- or 11- year-old commits an offence in Quebec. That child won't be cast aside in terms of interventions to make him a more responsible person or re-educate him simply because the Young Offenders Act sets the minimum age at 12.

This child and his family can receive social services and the child's situation could eventually be submitted to the Chambre de la jeunesse of the Court of Quebec if it is deemed necessary to intervene because the child's development or safety may be in peril.

.1725

The Youth Protection Act allows for more adequate interventions of this type for a child this age than the Young Offenders Act. For instance, interventions are regularly subjected to an ongoing reassessment process and the child is provided with adequate care until the age of 18. This is therefore a complementary piece of legislation.

To convince you of its complementarity, I can tell you that the provincial director, under the Young Offenders Act, and the director of Youth Protection, under the Youth Protection Act, both important players in the application of these two laws in Quebec, are one and the same person. The same person plays the roles of these two key players in applying these two pieces of legislation.

Therefore, this is not a mixed clientele. We don't place child victims with child aggressors. We move from one law to another, in accordance with the developmental difficulties of an individual child with problems. In Quebec, the situation of 12- and 13-year-olds has remained quite particular, despite the lowering of the age to 12 in 1984. For example, within the framework of our alternative solutions program, the Attorney General is strongly encouraged to consult the provincial director before putting a case into the official legal system.

With regard to the current maximum age, we already made what I would call a chink in the wall in the last series of amendments by proclaiming what I would call automatic remand of 16- and 17- year-olds accused of certain serious offences to normally competent jurisdictions, placing on them the onus of demonstrating that they should be remanded to a court for adolescents. We disagreed with that the last time we presented a brief to your committee.

We continue to believe that this is not a fair response to youth crime. Indeed, the absence of adequate resources for the re-education of 16- and 17-year-olds is undoubtedly the prime consequence of this. We continue to believe that in the vast majority of cases, it is in the interest of society in the short, medium and longterm that the adolescent be allowed to benefit from measures that meet his needs in order to make him a positive and productive citizen.

Once again, the development of the individual, according to well-known studies, does not support lowering the age. Moreover, in terms of having some coherence, this would bring about significant changes to many other aspects. Indeed, how can it be accepted that an individual is considered of legal age when he or she commits a crime, but is considered a child when it comes time to vote, to drive a car, to go out in discos and to have a firearms permit?

In closing, I will not reiterate the statistics that Mr. Masse quoted earlier. Suffice it to read the last issue of Juristat on youth crime to realize the importance of amending this legislation. Either the crime rate stays at the same level, or it is reduced, or it is so slightly increased that it cannot be quoted in support of an amendment to legislation that seems to be bearing fruit in many different ways.

I will close by saying that while we still have to develop means of making the current system more efficient, we must not give in to blackmail and to a trend toward greater repression. Moreover, regardless of the repression exerted against our youth, we can never completely eliminate extreme and odious cases. On the other hand, nor can we hijack many youngsters who would probably find their way in the current system. Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you. Mr. St-Laurent, ten minutes.

[Translation]

Mr. St-Laurent: Are Quebec lawyers adequately trained to face a 12-year-old client?

Mr. Boies: That is the point of a study by a Bar committee and various local Bar committees. They examined a document produced by a committee which conducted an in-depth study, with the help of experts, both from a legal and child psychology standpoint, of ways of intervening and the role of lawyers in intervention, both under the Youth Protection Act and the Young Offenders Act.

.1730

It was resolved that there should be university-level training to prepare those who are planning to represent children. In the continuing education program provided by the Bar, there are various courses dealing with representing children. Is the role of a lawyer different when he's facing a 12-year-old child? In some respects yes, and in others no.

A lawyer will always be a lawyer. There is no doubt that in his approach to a child, certain things have to be modulated, and the Bar is sensitive to that fact.

Mr. St-Laurent: This morning, Mr. Normand Bastien told us among other things that he had asked for more time for reflection before entering the first plea. You bring forward a child; there is a 24-hour-delay before the courts and you have to decide whether he is guilty or not.

At that point, in many cases - and I've seen this in the case of 16 and 17-year-olds - children are simply taken over by the legal system. When you commit a crime at 17, you're generally not thinking of what will happen next. When you face the music, the only person who can really give you advice is a lawyer, and the lawyer must immediately decide to do something, to meet with the parents, etc.

Apparently, a request was made for more time before making a plea. The legal system and society would be somewhat enriched by this. What is your opinion on that?

Mr. Boies: Some comments by the Bar, in its brief concerning delays, are somewhat in agreement with Mr. Bastien's position, which I am familiar with. I know both positions. Mr. Bastien's position and the comments of the Bar are along the same lines. There is no doubt that for a child, time is of the essence. Therefore, the intervention must not be prolonged, be it social or judicial, so that a decision is made as soon as possible after the act is committed, otherwise it is difficult for a child to see the link between the act and the sentence.

However, moving too fast leads to what Mr. Bastien has pointed out. Going too fast is not necessarily better, because it is important for the child to understand the decision properly. In order to understand and even accept it, he must understand the various steps in the legal process. The closer the child is to 12 year of age, the harder it is and the longer it takes to understand this.

Before entering a plea, it's important that the child clearly understands what it means to plead guilty or not guilty and the consequences this could have for him, for the society and for the victim. As you stated so well, all these elements cannot be understood in a few minutes, on the morning of the appearance.

It's a question of balance, as is often the case when working with children. We have to strike a balance between going too fast and too slowly. The Bar is somewhat in agreement with this statement that says that at certain stages, we have to take the time to explain things properly so that the final decision is well understood and is accepted by the child.

Mr. St-Laurent: In addition to the different roles that it already has, could the Bar go to the schools to meet with 13 and 14-year olds and explain to them certain fundamental principles of the legal system? Would that be possible?

.1735

Ms. Carole Brosseau (Lawyer, Research and Legislation, Barreau du Québec): Right now, certain projects are adapted in accordance with the target clientele. Among other things, we at the Barreau du Québec have various advisory committees, such as the one on cultural communities and aboriginal people, and we conduct adapted training for lawyers and for youngsters. There are also travelling programs.

We go to different schools and explain the role of the lawyer and the applicable law. We have funded - and this should be available by the fall - a sort of video in which we explain to youngsters their rights as well as the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Quebec Charter. We've been going on this for a few years.

We even have games in certain schools. A few years ago, we made up a game. We explained the justice system. It's a little bit like Monopoly with a pedagogical tool aimed at a very young clientele, elementary school children.

Yes, in this regard, the section bars, the Barreau de Montréal and the Barreau du Québec, have taken these initiatives. This is done regularly and periodically, we adapt things as the need arises. This is aimed at very young children in the latter elementary years, that is children in grades 4, 5 and 6, and a clientele in high school, where the approach is somewhat different. For adolescents, the program is much more oriented toward crime prevention.

Mr. St-Laurent: That is a very good initiative. You said that the law as such was a good one and that we shouldn't touch it, but you also talked about ways of doing things. You also said that on the whole, if there was anything to be done, it should be done in terms of how we proceed. Could you elaborate on that?

Mr. Masse: I'm no expert in juvenile delinquency, but the message that I wanted to transmit to you as the bâtonnier du Québec, Mr. St-Laurent, was that if it ain't broken, don't fix it. We want to tell you that there are certainly other resources that could be earmarked for supervision, and that greater involvement by those in the child environment and by certain parents is essential, but on the whole, with regard to the legislative framework - and I completely agree with Mr. Boies' remarks about age - it is very important not to change the current rules of the game. In Quebec, they work very well.

Of course, there is still delinquency and this will always be the case, but essentially, we feel that with the exception of certain more high profile cases, the situation is under control.

Ms. Brosseau: The purpose of the Young Offenders Act was to make youngsters responsible for their actions. We've noted that this has been done if we compare the current situation with that under the former Juvenile Delinquency Act. Quebec attempted to make the youngster more responsible on a progressive basis. We mustn't forget that youngsters are always learning and that their responsibility for their actions evolves with age. This is what we're attempting to do.

It is at 12 years of age that a young person can begin to be considered responsible. In our view, that is the minimum age. We are working towards that, but resources are adapted as the young person gets older. Obviously, a 17-year old will not assume responsibility for a crime against property which he or she has committed in the same way as a the 12-year old. Therefore, the system is adapted.

It is working very well, and I don't think there is any reason to change anything at the present time. The way the legislation is applied can be improved, but I don't think it would be appropriate to change the basis or objectives of the legislation, given the present situation in Quebec.

.1740

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. St-Laurent.

Mr. Ramsay, ten minutes.

Mr. Ramsay: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you for your submission. We have many questions and so little time. I'd just like to say this. I don't think it's repressive for the people of Canada to want a law in place to protect society from criminal acts committed by children under 12 years of age.

The old Juvenile Delinquents Act could deal with any criminal acts committed by children of any age. I enforced that act for 14 years. When it was changed, your province moved in with the youth protection act, and there is law in place to deal with children under 12 years of age. In Alberta we have young kids stealing cars again and again who are 10 and 11 years old, and all the police can do is pick them up and take them home.

There is a cry out there, at least in that part of the country, for something to be done about the law, and they direct it at the Young Offenders Act. They want the age reduced to 10. It doesn't seem to me to make any difference whether it's reduced under the YOA and comes under the federal statute or under a provincial statute.

Under the old Juvenile Delinquents Act, the judges and courts had the authority to not only sentence but to give treatment options. But the treatment options were removed when we moved to the Young Offenders Act. I just say that in passing.

I'm impressed with the statute you have here. It fills the void that was created when we moved from the Juvenile Delinquents Act to the Young Offenders Act. You do have law in place where -

The Chair: Mr. Ramsay, just to clarify, the treatment options have not been removed. There is a treatment option in the Young Offenders Act and it was amended -

Mr. Ramsay: Through the alternative measures, I would agree.

The Chair: Section 22 was repealed in the last go-round under 37.

Mr. Ramsay: Yes, that has been addressed to a degree. But in 1984, when they brought it in, there was a void there.

The chair has interrupted me and destroyed my train of thought.

You say the following in your brief:

The YOA was passed in 1982 and came into force in 1984. It transferred a system that had not held young persons responsible for their behaviour.

I disagree with that because I thought it did. We used to lay charges. They used to have to appear in court with their parents, and a fine would be issued for young offenders.

You also say the following:

The JDA had not emphasized responsibility by young persons: it had treated them like misled children in need of assistance, encouragement and help.

Perhaps in some cases it did, but in other cases it held them very much accountable for what they did. I just make those observations.

I would like to ask you this. I read in one of the briefs here about the suicide rate in the province, particularly the youth rate. Do you have any comments on the cause of that? You have a really good youth protection act that deals with early detection and prevention of deviant behaviour. Would you care to comment on the suicide rate?

[Translation]

Mr. Boies: You are asking a question which could certainly be answered by psychologists working with young people. In view of the training we have received as members of the Bar, it is hard for us to explain the phenomenon of suicide among young people.

.1745

Indeed, your comment is correct. We are starting to consider why in a society which tries to find the reasons for children's problems, some children slip through the net provided to help them reach adulthood as well prepared as possible. I don't have the answer. Some of the studies currently underway may perhaps provide more specific answers.

Is it because we demand too much academically from our children? Is it because we push them too much to perform? A good number of suicides are not necessarily the result of social problems, but rather family or school problems encountered by the individual. Is it related to that? I don't have the answer. Your question is too psychological in nature for me to be able to provide any answer.

[English]

Mr. Ramsay: Okay. I understand that perhaps it wasn't fair to ask that question.

[Translation]

Mr. Masse: I saw a figure for the suicide rate among young people in Quebec, Mr. Ramsay. What struck me was that the suicide rate among young aboriginals is considerably higher that in other sectors of the population. Therefore, when we talk about the suicide rate - and I am simply making a suggestion here - , it should be broken down in a way other than on a provincial basis.

The situation for aboriginals is clearly chronic and dramatic. I only had the figures for Quebec and I wondered whether they were not concealing the problem among aboriginals, which might require a totally different approach from the way the issue is addressed in southern and urban areas.

[English]

Mr. Ramsay: I want to touch on an issue that was brought up by a previous witness who has worked as a lawyer with young offenders. He said that lawyers who do not have adequate time to discuss the case with the parents and so on fall into a situation where the child may have confessed to their parents that they committed the deed for which they're charged. Some lawyers may plead them not guilty. The message I got from his testimony was that when that happens it is reinforcing in the mind of the offender that it's okay to deny the truth, that it's okay to deny in front of the judge, in front of the court, that they did what they have done and have already confessed to the parents they did, that they stole the bike or broke the window.

He said, ``Just to get my fee and show that I'm a good lawyer, I'll fight and I'll discredit the truth that's coming from the police and other witnesses. I'll try to discredit the facts and the truth.''

Perhaps this is good in adult court, but in youth court what kind of message is being sent to the young offender, who has admitted that he has done wrong but now sees that he might not have to suffer the consequences of his action, that although he has confessed to his parents, he can beat this case in court?

Being members of the bar, do you have any comments from your observations?

[Translation]

Mr. Boies: What I said earlier to Mr. St-Laurent still holds. You are making comparisons with the adult system, and sometimes you have to take more time with a child than with an adult, if only to explain how the justice system works. Until now, we have tried to base the procedure used in the youth justice system on that of the adult system.

As you pointed out and Mr. Bastien indicated this morning, the first stage is the appearance, when the person charged is asked to plead guilty or not guilty. At that time, it is obvious that the lawyer is not necessarily able to properly inform his client about the various options, perhaps because the police or the Attorney General may not have available evidence related to the charges against the person concerned. Therefore, the lawyer will ask a few days or perhaps a few weeks, to obtain that information to see his client again and to contact the parents.

.1750

Perhaps this is not appropriate. Perhaps we should consider whether the first appearance should simply be postponed, with evidence being transmitted to the lawyer and he or she seeing the client again before the latter pleads guilty or not guilty.

There are of course also cases where the young person concerned believes he is guilty whereas he is in fact not. He may have confessed certain misdeeds to his parents without being legally guilty because, in the particular case, there is a defence available. He may also not be guilty of the particular offence with which he is charged.

In my experience as a lawyer, I have had a client charged with attempted murder and finally pleading guilty to common assault, while I myself was not very much involved. The facts simply demonstrated that in the final analysis it wasn't at all a case of attempted murder by my client, even though he did acknowledge certain things. If, initially, he had been told that he was guilty and should plead guilty because he had already told other people that he had committed an unlawful act, he would have pleaded guilty to a crime which he did not really commit.

In conclusion therefore, as I said earlier, there are certain things you have to look at again in order to reach the right decision, be it a plea of guilty or not guilty, or to hand down a sentence if the accused pleads guilty. You need time to do that, and certain steps may have to be changed in order to adapt them to young offenders. It does not mean that you have to change the legislation in order to achieve that. The legislation, as it stands, easily makes it possible to apply those principles.

[English]

The Chair: Ms Torsney.

Ms Torsney: I have two questions for you. First, I had a particular case brought forward to me in my riding where a young person signed away a lot of their rights with the police officers and the parents are asking how this could have happened; how could they have signed away these rights without counsel and what have you? Is that a problem in Quebec or not?

[Translation]

How old is he? I think he is 14 or 15.

Mr. Boies: In Quebec that is not really a problem. Generally, the provisions of the Young Offenders Act, particularly section 56, are respected and, insofar they are not, lawyers will make sure that the statement is not admissible as evidence.

Furthermore, the various police forces in Quebec have established quite a clear procedure promoting the involvement of parents. Once a young person is arrested, the first telephone call will be to inform the parent that his or her child is in a police station, explaining the reasons for the arrest and the need, if possible, for one or both parents to be present.

Now, with the new provisions of the Young Offenders Act, which have separated the right to have parents present and the right to have the assistance of a lawyer, the second call is made to a lawyer's office. Perhaps Mr. Bastien spoke to you about this this morning since he is the head of a firm of lawyers representing young people in the Montreal region, in Quebec two telephone calls can be made to refer the case either to a legal aid office or to the service offered by the Quebec Bar. If an individual does speak to a lawyer at that time, it's really because he does not want to, because everything is made available to allow him access to a lawyer.

I'd like to come back to the call to the parents. This is a customary practice in the procedure. Obviously, the police are like lawyers or members of Parliament: there are good ones and less good ones. Sometimes this part of the procedure will be omitted, but generally it is not a problem.

[English]

Ms Torsney: I think in this case the young person thought they understood the issues and either didn't make the calls the police...or thought the system worked a little differently. Perhaps they thought the police officer was more of their friend and was really trying to get the information and work with them on the issue rather than charge them with something in the end. So it's admissible, but.... Perhaps they didn't understand the extent of their rights or the implications of signing away their rights.

.1755

Page 31 of your brief in English has a comparative table of statistics. I was a little confused by two of the headings. One speaks of the percentage of young offenders and one of the percentage of young persons. I wonder if you can tell me what the difference is. On the one hand the percentage of young offenders is decreasing, in the first box, and roughly the same in the second box over the years, but the percentage of young persons keeps increasing. I'm not sure....

[Translation]

Mr. Brosseau: Generally speaking, the crime rate remained more or less stable from the time the legislation was first enforced until 1994. This can give you some indication of the statistics which are sometimes confusing. Since 1994-1995, there has been an increase of about 2.5 per cent in violent crimes, as compared with 46 per cent. Generally speaking, the figures have remained quite stable.

We basically wanted to show that youth crime had not increased very much; it has remained stable, whereas adult crime has increased considerably. The statistics you have date back to 1993, if I'm not mistaken. Perhaps I did not answer your question. I was referring to the wrong chart.

[English]

Ms Torsney: Okay.

[Translation]

I think you have the correct answer because the percentage of youth is included in the overall population.

Ms. Brosseau: That's right.

Ms. Torsney: So that figure increases every year, but the percentage of young offenders is lower.

Ms. Brosseau: This chart shows you the annual percentage increase. You have the adults here and down here, the youths. The figures are in thousands. These are the years. All right? This is up until 1993.

[English]

Ms Torsney: Okay.

The other question I have is that some people say the issue isn't the number of incidents, the issue is the quality or the severity; the fact that children aren't just hitting somebody once or twice, they're hitting them thirty-five times. There's a real lack of control there. The outcomes are that much more severe, even though the number of incidents is decreasing. Is that your observation over the years, or is the Toope murder an aberration?

[Translation]

Mr. Masse: If I understood your question, you have to focus on the seriousness of the crime, rather than the number. There again, regardless of the number or type of crime committed, we think that with all the jurisprudence for the Young Offenders Act that has been accumulated over the years, the court can choose from a broad range of rulings. Even if you are dealing with a first offence, the guideline is still valid, namely to do what is required while recognizing that it is an offence, and to intervene and try to treat the problem in a very specific manner.

As Mr. Ramsay said earlier, even if the provision for treatment is no longer invoked, in Quebec, during the probation period, the accused will have to meet with social workers or mental health professionals to stop their unacceptable behaviour.

When we interpreted the rulings, including those by the Supreme Court, we felt there was quite a range of options. Youth court judges really tried to meet the needs of the various individuals who appeared in court, while still meeting all the legal criteria and guidelines. I don't know if that answers your question.

.1800

[English]

Ms Torsney: I guess the problem is that we're still talking about after someone has been victimized and some people are saying, ``Look, these kids are out of control. Manage to do something. Change the law. Stop them from coming at me, and stop murders like those that happened in Beaconsfield.''

How do you answer those people?

[Translation]

Ms. Brosseau: There are extreme cases where no amount of legislation will suffice. In those cases, there are truly extreme situations. We say so in our brief and I think the Jasmin Report also mentioned it. Current legislation provides for a referral procedure which could be used more often. Bear in mind that when the youth court system is no longer adequate - and that may be the case - , the adult system might be the proper place to deal with the matter and may be the solution. There is a legal provision to make that referral. That is what our brief was referring to. the case you raise, though, is exceptional.

Is that a general solution? You have to look at crime in general terms. You could say that violent crime is on the rise. It's true and it's a fact. But most crimes are often property tort, which is less serious than personal tort. That is what society has always felt.

That is what we were referring to. We will be honest with you. I think that sometimes the solution is to send the youth to adult court. It can be used as a resource in some cases, and that is why there is provision for the referral.

Ms. Torsney: Thank you very much.

[English]

The Chair: I have one brief question. The answer might not be brief.

A very few police officers have encouraged us to change section 56 of the Young Offenders Act to bring the rights of young people, in terms of giving statements, into line with the charter, instead of giving more protection to young people who are faced with detention and the possibility of giving a statement. We've not had very many people comment on section 56.

I must say that it's not the position of the Canadian Police Association that we should change, and as a former prosecutor and defence lawyer it's my experience that section 56 is a problem only if the police officer wants to take a short cut.

I don't mean to bias your answer, but that's my view.

Can you tell me if you've discussed section 56, if the Barreau du Québec has a position on whether it should be changed, strengthened, left the same, or deleted altogether?

[Translation]

Mr. Boies: Your brief does not deal with section 56, which the committee did not ask about. In other briefs, people mentioned that section 56 should be kept.

They did realize it was stiffer. But this brings us back to the same fundamental issue. A child is not as mature as an adult. He needs more protection, especially when police intervene or when his constitutional rights are challenged. The Bar therefore felt that the protection provided under section 56 upheld that principle and did not really pose a problem.

Most of the jurisprudence for section 56 does not come from Quebec. It would seem, then, that the section does not really pose a problem there, and the procedures used by police are quite effective. It does not really pose any problem at the trial; the procedures either clearly apply or they don't. But there isn't really any debate over it in Quebec, and certainly not a substantial one.

[English]

Mr. Maloney: You gave a figure of a 3% failure rate on your alternative measures programs, which is rather impressive. As far as you're concerned, what constitutes a failure rate? What is a failure? Is it reoffending; another charge laid?

.1805

[Translation]

Mr. Boies: The figures are indeed available, in fact, they are in the Jasmin Report. I presume you have a copy of it. I think it was even translated. Not fulfilling the contract could he considered a breach; the consequence of that would be to refer the matter to court. I don't whether that answers your question.

[English]

Mr. Maloney: Do you have any statistics on these individuals who are put through the alternative measures, whatever they might be; statistics on their reoffending?

[Translation]

Mr. Boies: No, we do not have one. I tried to get an answer to that question. Last week, we compared statistics to see if we could get these figures. I told that approximately 10 per cent of youth who had been imposed alternative measures were involved in the program, because sometimes a youth may go through the alternative measures program twice, or may reoffend and be tried in youth court. I am not really giving you the figures, because we are in the process of checking them to make sure they accurately reflect statistics.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you very much. We appreciate your contribution very much.

The meeting is adjourned.

Return to Committee Home Page