Bill C-7 · 37th Parliament · Jean Chrétien
Youth Criminal Justice Act
An Act in respect of criminal justice for young persons and to amend and repeal other Acts
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedFeb. 5, 2001
- Debated in principleMarch 26, 2001
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberMay 29, 2001
- Passed the second chamberDec. 17, 2001
- Became lawFeb. 19, 2002
Leading supporters
Ranked by the part each played: who is responsible for the bill, who carried it, and who spoke for it most.
- Jean ChrétienPrime Minister
Who carries this bill
Arrows run from the person responsible to those who answer to them on this bill. The critic leads the Senate’s scrutiny and answers to no one on it.
Where members stand
Votes and debate for this bill have not been read yet.
How it changed on the way
69% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (59,387 words introduced, 55,395 passed).
substantial changeintent mostly kept
The bill received royal assent on 19 February 2002 with minor clean-up to headings and French terms. The core preamble and definitions stayed intact despite 69 percent of the introduced text being altered overall.
- Added royal assent date after passage.
After: “[Assented to 19th February, 2002]”
- Removed internal section header for consequential amendments.
Before: “Part XXVII and summary conviction trial provisions of Criminal Code to apply CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS, REPEAL AND COMING INTO FORCE ”
How precisely it is written
mixedChallenging the law: ModerateDisputing a charge: Moderate
The Act supplies many exact definitions and numerical age thresholds that fix its scope clearly. Operative rules on extrajudicial measures and sanctions repeatedly insert subjective judgments and opinions that blur what is required.
Open to argument
“it would be appropriate, having regard to the needs of the young person and the interests of society”
Uses an open-ended appropriateness test instead of fixed criteria.“in the opinion of the Attorney General, sufficient evidence to proceed”
Makes legality turn on one official's subjective assessment.“if, in the opinion of the court, prosecution of the charge would be unfair”
Leaves dismissal to an undefined fairness judgment.“satisfied on a balance of probabilities that the young person has totally complied”
Requires weighing compliance against an imprecise standard.
Clear-cut
“the period of time, or the portion of the young person's youth sentence, that must be served in custody before he or she begins to serve the remainder under supervision”
Defines custodial portion by reference to specific paragraphs and a fixed sequence.
Discretion. Police officers, the Attorney General, provincial directors and youth justice courts retain wide latitude to decide when warnings, cautions, referrals or sanctions are sufficient or appropriate.
Challenging the law itself. Vague standards such as appropriateness and fairness could support a s. 7 Charter vagueness or overbreadth claim.
Disputing a charge under it. An accused can readily dispute whether an officer or court properly formed the required opinions on appropriateness or compliance.
Read by a language model from the royal assent text; every quoted phrase appears in the bill. A reading of the drafting, not legal advice.
Did it work?
partly effective
The YCJA achieved key objectives by significantly reducing youth court proceedings and custody sentences while supporting diversion and rehabilitation, as confirmed by national data trends and program evaluations, without increasing recorded youth crime. However, challenges persist including overrepresentation of Indigenous and racialized youth, barriers in rural areas, and mixed performance on some indicators like case completion times.
- Evaluation of the Youth Justice Initiative (March 2021), Department of Justice CanadaevaluationThe YJI supporting YCJA implementation is relevant and effective, contributing to provincial/territorial capacity for programs that align with federal objectives of reducing formal court processes and custody for non-serious cases, with national data showing fewer youth charged and sentenced to custody.
- State of the Criminal Justice System Report: A Focus on Youth (2024), Department of Justice CanadareviewOn the YCJA's 20th anniversary, the youth criminal justice system shows improvement in 7 of 32 indicators, with substantial decreases in police-reported youth crime rates, increased use of diversion/community responses, and reduced detention/custody, though some indicators like case completion time declined.
- Evaluating the Youth Criminal Justice Act After Five Years: A Qualified Success (2009), Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal JusticestudyIn its first five years, the YCJA significantly reduced recourse to youth court and custody without increasing recorded juvenile crime, though regional variations persist and remand custody rates remained a concern.
- Evaluation of the Youth Justice Initiative (March 2016), Department of Justice CanadaevaluationThe YJI has contributed to changes reducing formal court processes and custodial sentences, supporting progressive programs, though long-term impacts and resource sufficiency are hard to conclusively determine due to provincial/territorial responsibilities.
Who lobbied on it
No lobbying registration naming this bill is loaded.
Stages and dates from LEGISinfo.