Skip to content | Skip to institutional links

Common menu bar links

Institutional links

Youth Justice

Proactive Disclosure
- Proactive Disclosure

A Strategy for the Renewal of Youth Justice

Concerns about the Current Youth Justice System

Public opinion surveys, media reports and anecdotal accounts together show widespread negative attitudes toward the Young Offenders Act and youth courts. Generally, the public believes that youth court judges are too lenient, that youth crime, particularly violent youth crime, is on the increase and longer sentences are necessary.

Renewing Youth Justice, p.17

Lack of Public Confidence

In general, the public believes that the Young Offenders Act and youth court judges are too lenient, and questions the ability of the youth justice system to provide meaningful penalties proportionate to the seriousness of offences. The criticism of sentencing practices seems to be widespread, even though most judges dealing with youth are the same as those who hear adult cases and despite the fact that Canadian youth incarceration rates are higher than those of other countries and higher than incarceration rates for adults.

Early intervention in the lives of young people was seen as an essential element in reducing long term youth offending, but it has to be appropriate, effective, community-based and supportive of parents, families and extended families

Renewing Youth Justice, p. 11

Early Intervention

The youth justice system is criticized for being too late in responding to the problems of youth. Many young offenders demonstrate a clear pattern of disruptive behaviour before they actually commit crimes. This reinforces the importance of early intervention to address underlying problems, which could help protect the public from crime and prevent children at risk from pursuing lives of crime.

By the time young people commit serious offences and get involved in the youth justice system, most have a long history of displaying antisocial behaviour. Attempts to instil pro-social attitudes in and modify the behaviour of delinquent adolescents ... require intensive, expensive remedial treatment. Clearly, protection of the public is best achieved if we can prevent youth from getting involved in crime in the first place.

Renewing Youth Justice, p. 25-26

Need for Effective Alternatives to Incarceration

Many sentences other than custody provide meaningful consequences for youth crime. Custody, in some cases, is simply used as a place where youth mark time and develop into more seasoned and sophisticated criminals. Alternatives that require young people to repay victims and society for the harm done teach responsibility and respect for others and reinforce social values.

The Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs heard evidence that the rate of youth incarceration in Canada is much higher than that of many other western countries, including the United States, Australia and New Zealand. There is also considerable variation within Canada, with incarceration rates three to four times higher in some provinces than in others but without comparable variations in crime rates.

The high rates of youth incarceration may in part reflect a shortage of effective non-custodial sentencing options or their relatively infrequent use. Many criminal justice professionals and members of the public favour restricting custody to the most violent and persistent offenders and using the savings on more effective alternatives for non-violent, low-risk youth.

Within the population of young offenders, however, a small proportion repetitively engage in serious offences against property and persons. Survey research indicates, not surprisingly, that these violent and repeat young offenders generate the most public anxiety

Renewing Youth Justice, p. 25

Inability to Deal with Violent and Repeat Offenders

The public questions the capacity of the youth justice system to deal effectively with violent youth crime. Many question whether the range of penalties available to the youth court is sufficient to hold youth accountable for repeat violent offences and to deter others. These reservations concerning the most violent offenders, whose acts are often widely publicized, can taint the public's confidence in the youth justice system as a whole.

The Committee believes it is important that the purpose and the guiding principles of both the youth justice system and the Young Offenders Act be made explicit and clear.

Renewing Youth Justice, p. 9

Need for a Common Vision

Some argue that the principles set out in the Young Offenders Act compete with one another and that the priorities are unclear - obscuring the purposes and objectives of the youth justice system. While there is a substantial consensus on the need for enhanced crime prevention efforts and meaningful alternatives for non-violent offenders, there is less clarity on the fundamental objectives of the system and how the public is best protected.

...[T]he Committee ... favours an approach based on early intervention, where prevention efforts, community and family-based, informal, non-criminal justice strategies are given primacy. The full gamut of criminal justice instruments, including custodial dispositions, should be reserved for the most serious instances of youth offending.

Renewing Youth Justice, p. 41

Role of Parents, Family and Victims

The youth justice system has been criticized by some for intimidating and excluding parents and extended family. Others believe that parents should be required to assume greater responsibility for their children. The system has also been criticized for not recognizing the interests and needs of victims. The roles for parents and victims in the youth justice process must be more clearly defined.

Inadequate Reintegration, Rehabilitation and After-Care

Studies have shown that providing young offenders with appropriate treatment, guidance and support both during custody and when they return to their communities is critical to ensuring that young offenders do not reoffend. Many observers have pointed to the absence of effective conditional-release mechanisms as a flaw of the current system, and stress the need for greater community support for reintegration.

... [O]ne's ancestry, gender or race may be important in their contact with the youth justice system.

Renewing Youth Justice, p. 3

Need to Ensure Equity

There is a need to ensure that the youth justice system deals fairly and effectively with all young people. The dispropor-tionately high level of Aboriginal youth in the justice system, especially in custody, underscores the need for measures that address root causes of crime, as well as for procedures that hold youth accountable for their actions in a culturally appropriate and meaningful way within their communities.

Because few young females are convicted of personal injury or significant property offences, few specialized programs have been developed for them, although many young female offenders require programs to deal with prior sexual abuse and health-related issues. Girls still make up only 20 percent of all youth apprehended by police and only 14 and 10 percent of cases committed to open and secure custody, respectively. However, more females have been charged with personal injury offences since the mid-1980s and there is increasing concern about girls becoming involved in violent, gang-related activities. There is a clear need for more research in this area, so that appropriate programs for these young women can be developed.

Timeliness and Improved Administration

Long delays between the time when an offence is committed and the time when formal sentences are imposed can make the sentences seem less meaningful for youth, victims and the community. This is particularly true for cases that include an application to transfer the youth to adult court - the transfer hearing, appeals from the decision, and the trial can take years to complete.

Many also argue that costly and inflexible provisions in the existing law impede the administration of justice, that the process could be streamlined by giving the police and correctional officials the power to exercise more discretion, and by simplifying administrative procedures.

... [M]embers of the Committee were acutely aware of the lack of congruence between public perceptions of youth crime and the youth justice system, and the reality.

Renewing Youth Justice, p.17

Public Knowledge

There is also a need to improve the public's access to information about youth crime and the youth justice system. Fear of crime and growing concerns about the effectiveness of the Young Offenders Act are heightened, in part, by high-profile cases involving violent youth crime. The public is less frequently informed of the youth justice system's success stories involving the majority of youth who offend once and never reoffend. Steps need to be taken by all partners in the youth justice system to provide Canadians with better and more complete information about youth crime in their communities.

The [Young Offenders] Act is highly controversial, and questions have been raised about whether it remains the best model of juvenile justice in Canada in the current age. In my view, in order to restore public confidence in the youth justice system, it would be helpful for the Committee to undertake a thorough, open-minded and critical examination of the Act and its provisions.

June 2, 1994, letter from Minister of Justice to the Chair of the Standing Committee

Time for Renewal

Now is the time to renew the youth justice system. The federal, provincial and territorial governments have identified children and youth as priorities; the Premiers have encouraged meaningful legislative amendments and pledged co-operation on key elements of youth justice; the Federal-Provincial-Territorial Task Force, the Standing Committee and others have made thoughtful recommendations.

The Young Offenders Act has been the subject of ongoing debate since it came into force in 1984. Replacing the 1908 Juvenile Delinquents Act, which was characterized by a philosophy directed towards child welfare, informal procedures and considerable judicial discretion, the Young Offenders Act blended four fundamental principles: that young people must assume responsibility for their illegal behaviour; that society has a right to be protected from illegal behaviour; that if young people are held responsible for their criminal acts, they are entitled to traditional legal rights and some additional protections; and that young people, because they are not fully grown or mature, have special needs and should not be held accountable in the same manner or to the same extent as adults. Heralded as a major social reform at the time, the Young Offenders Act allowed a range of sentences, including absolute discharges, fines, compensation orders, treatment orders, probation and custodial orders for a maximum of three years. Provisions also allowed a young person, under certain circumstances, to be transferred to the adult system and dealt with as an adult.

To support the implementation and administration of the Act, the federal government entered into cost-sharing agreements with the provinces and territories. While the earlier federal-provincial-territorial cost-sharing regime under the Canada Assistance Plan was based on child welfare-related objectives and basically limited to custody costs, the original Young Offenders Act agreements maintained the coverage for custody but were broadened to include post-adjudication detention, alternative measures and bail-supervision programs as items eligible for a 50 percent federal contribution. Other items, including probation and predisposition reports, were added to the list of cost-shareable items so that the federal government reimbursed the provinces for 50 percent of the increase in costs to these existing services. However, because the federal contribution was determined by how much the provinces and territories would spend on various programs, nearly three-quarters of the federal contribution was directed to custody and custodial programming, which resulted in proportionately less federal support for provinces with lower custody rates.

Federal funding was frozen in 1989 at $156 million. The overall federal share of eligible provincial costs has fallen to an average of approximately 30 percent, largely because of the increases in expenditures for young offender services in most provinces since the capping of the federal contribution program in 1989 and also because of reductions in federal funding resulting from the government-wide program review exercise (3.9 percent in 1996-97 and 3.5 percent in 1998-99).

In response to concerns raised over the years, the Young Offenders Act has been amended three times: in 1986, 1992 and 1995. The last two sets of amendments responded to public concerns that the Act was too lenient, and increased sentence lengths for young murderers. The 1992 amendments extended the possible length of sentences in the youth court from three to five years less one day for murder, and clarified the test for transferring young people to the adult system. The 1995 amendments again increased the length of sentences in youth court to ten years for those who commit first degree murder; introduced a presumption that 16- and 17-year-olds charged with murder, attempted murder, manslaughter and aggravated sexual assault should be dealt with in the adult system; changed parole ineligibility periods; allowed for victim impact statements to be read in youth court; provided for greater information-sharing among youth justice professionals; allowed for retention of records for some offences; and encouraged community-based dispositions for youths charged with minor and non-violent offences.

While the most recent set of amendments were being tabled on June 2, 1994, the then Minister of Justice wrote to the Chair of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs proposing a fundamental review of the Young Offenders Act. The Minister noted that the Act was controversial and that questions had been raised about whether it remained the best model for juvenile justice in Canada.

At the same time, a Task Force on Youth Justice was established by the federal, provincial and territorial Ministers Responsible for Justice to provide a comprehensive review of the Act. Its report, completed in August 1996, contained recommendations on key elements of the youth justice system such as age limits, serious offenders, alternatives to the courts, transfers to adult court, improvements to the administration of justice and sentencing. The work of the Task Force is recognized as an important analysis and a significant contribution, and it was referred to the Standing Committee for consideration.

After an extensive review of the youth justice system involving roundtable discussions and a National Forum, trips to different parts of Canada, witnesses representing more than 100 organizations and various governments and more than 100 written briefs, the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs released its report, Renewing Youth Justice, in April 1997. It included significant findings about the youth justice system and made 14 specific recommendations.

The Premiers, with the exception of the Premier of Québec, agreed that the federal government should move expeditiously to introduce meaningful amendments to the Young Offenders Act to combat youth crime, protect communities and restore public confidence in the youth justice system. Premiers also agreed that the federal, provincial and territorial governments should co-operate to improve preventative and rehabilitative programs for young offenders.

August 8, 1997, Premiers' Meeting on Social Policy Renewal

Calls for reform have continued since the Report was tabled. At their August 1997 conference, Premiers encouraged the federal government to act on youth justice issues. With the exception of Quebec, the Premiers agreed that "the federal government should move expeditiously to introduce meaningful amendments to the Young Offenders Act to combat youth crime, protect communities and restore public confidence in the youth justice system. Premiers also agreed that the federal, provincial and territorial governments should co-operate to improve preventative and rehabilitative programs for young offenders.

At the December 1997 Federal-Provincial-Territorial Meeting of Ministers Responsible for Justice, the Ministers of Alberta, Manitoba, Prince Edward Island and Ontario tabled proposed amendments to the Young Offenders Act. In February 1998, the Saskatchewan Minister of Justice also called for amend-ments to deal more effectively with violent and serious young offenders.

Comprehensive studies have been conducted; extensive con-sultations have been undertaken; considerable consensus has been achieved. This response to the Thirteenth Report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs on Renewing Youth Justice will set out the federal government's strategy and principal directions for the renewal of youth justice. The intent is that, after an intensive period of focused consultation, a Bill to support the renewal of youth justice will be introduced in the fall of 1998.