CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION
The incidence and impact of youth crime are troubling issues for many Canadians, making them fearful and causing them to take precautions against being victimized. The frequent attempts by those involved in the youth justice system and by knowledgeable observers to reassure Canadians that their communities are among the safest in the world are often of little or no effect.The youth justice system, like many other public sector activities, suffers from two simultaneous syndromes - declining credibility with the public and decreasing resources. Both of these phenomena are occurring at a time when the legitimacy of many political and social institutions is being questioned by Canadians in a climate of cynicism, and personal and community feelings of insecurity. It was in this context that the Committee undertook its review of the youth justice system.
Canada has had a separate youth justice system since 1908, when Parliament adopted the Juvenile Delinquents Act.1 Starting in the early 1960s, this system was subjected to a thorough reconsideration, resulting in the 1982 adoption by Parliament of the Young Offenders Act,2 which came into full effect in 1985. Although the Act has been amended three times since then in response to public demand, the effectiveness of the youth justice system is still an object of controversy, even though the most recent changes (contained in Bill C-37) toughened up certain penalties and the transfer provisions for dealing with the most serious instances of youth offending.
The Committee was aware when it began its study that many Canadians are critical of the youth justice system and that demands for the reduction in offending, reoffending and victimization are increasingly being heard across the country. The Committee realized early on in its deliberations, however, that if community safety and a broad sense of justice are to be achieved, a program consisting only of harsher penalties resulting in more custodial sentences is not the policy option to adopt.
The Committee learned, as this Report documents, that most youth offending behaviour is minor and temporary with only a minority of young offenders involved in serious and persistent criminal acts. Yet, youth in conflict with the law in this country are processed through the courts and sentenced to custody at rates higher than those in many other industrialized countries. And despite harsh sentences, reoffending rates are high.
The Committee heard that serious, repeat offenders, who commit the majority of all youth crimes, are overwhelmingly multiproblem youth from multiproblem families living in an environment characterized by unemployment, financial problems, poor housing, underresourced neighbourhoods, poverty, violence, substance abuse, and inconsistent and incompetent parenting practices. Young people "socialized" under these conditions tend to fail at school, abuse drugs and alcohol and associate with delinquent peers. Many have "graduated" from provincial child welfare and mental health systems, and, if not rehabilitated through the youth justice system, will be "promoted" into the adult criminal justice system.
The Committee was informed of research confirming that by the time adolescents become involved in serious offending behaviour they have had a long history of aggressive, disruptive, antisocial behaviour, which began in childhood. Research has also shown it is possible to identify children as young as three or four who are at risk for long-term social, emotional and/or behavioural problems. Punishing high-risk youth who have little stake in their school or community has been shown not to discourage reoffending behaviour. Through social intervention, however, disadvantaged, antisocial children can be moved off the trajectory that leads to future delinquency and adult criminality.
Because numerous social factors are associated with youth crime, many witnesses before the Committee concluded that most of the solutions lie outside the criminal justice system. Minor, temporary offending behaviour among adolescents is common; few young offenders advance to serious and persistent offending behaviour, while a custodial disposition exposes youth daily to other antisocial youth. As a result, witnesses were unanimous that formal judicial proceedings should be reserved for offenders who are clearly a threat to public safety.
Finally, the Committee heard an appeal across country for resources and support for community-based social interventions and alternatives to the formal youth justice system. Such an approach, it was told, is demonstrably less expensive in human and financial terms than the status quo and has the capability to foster social protection and the development of healthy and socially competent people.
Because it believes the youth justice system is in need of renewal, the Committee accepted the invitation of the Minister of Justice, the Honourable Allan Rock, in June 1994 to conduct a comprehensive review of the Act and its administration by the provinces and territories in what he called Phase II. (A copy of his letter to the Honourable Warren Allmand, then Chair of the Committee, can be found at Appendix A of this Report.) The Committee in June 1995, released a Mandate setting out the terms of reference of its review and the issues of concern into it; this document was distributed widely, and briefs and submissions were invited and many were received from interested groups and individuals. The Committee heard from more than 300 witnesses and 166 groups (Appendices C and D). (A copy of the Committee's Mandate can be found at Appendix B of this Report.) (A list of briefs and written submissions can be found at Appendice G of this Report.)
In addition to its work in Ottawa, the Committee travelled to many parts of Canada where it not only held hearings, but also visited twenty-three (23) sites of a variety of facilities and programs (Appendix E). While travelling, the Committee also held a number of round table discussions at which it heard from many interests, both inside and outside of the youth justice system. In November 1996, the Federal-Provincial-Territorial Task Force on Youth Justice released its report; the Committee used this document as a sourcebook during the final stages of its deliberations. As the final component of this review, the Committee on November 22, 1996 held a National Forum on Youth Crime and Justice at which it heard from many of those interested and involved in the youth justice system. (A list of participants can be found at Appendix F of this Report.)
The Report does not deal in detail with the situations of aboriginal youth, young women and visible minority young people. This does not mean that the Committee does not appreciate or is unaware of the fact that one's ancestry, gender or race may be important in their contact with the youth justice system. The Committee's mandate called for a general review of youth crime, the youth justice system and the Young Offenders Act. However, many of the findings and recommendations contained in this Report are applicable to these groups of young people.
1 R.S.C. 1970, c. J-3, now repealed.
2 R.S.C. 1985, c. Y-1, as amended.