Justice Committee on March 30th, 2010

[Kelly Holmes]

If you look at this whole panel, many of us work together on an ongoing basis. Mike would have younger kids, and I would have older ones. I'm the final safety net, as it were, of this panel. Laura's area is that of projects; it's time-limited and money-limited and we'd love it to be ongoing, but hers is project specific. Paul does the residential group home aspect of this, including foster homes and a number of other continuing supports around it. So all of us are trying to fill in every gap of every system, wherever these kids can fall through. We all struggle with money.

I was just thinking back to youth. Just off the top of my head, the gangs that we know of are the Mad Cowz, B-Side, Native Syndicate, Manitoba Warriors, Indian Posse, Zig Zag Crew, Deuce, and Manitoba Bloods. That's just off the top of my head. I think there are about 16. Those are gangs of kids, but could have members anywhere from age eight to 27.

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

I have one final question, Mr. Chair, and I will ask it quickly.

The government is talking about toughening the Young Offenders Act. I would like to know your opinion on that subject.

[Kelly Holmes]

That's not the solution.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

All right, thank you.

Thank you, Madame Guay.

We'll move on to Monsieur Comartin.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Ms. Johnson, how long has your project been funded?

[Laura Johnson]

We were funded in 2007. It's four-year funding and our funding is scheduled to end at the end of this fiscal year, March 31, 2011.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

I've worked in agencies since I first became a lawyer about 40 years ago, and the pattern you mentioned seems to repeat itself every time there is a new government, even a long-term government. The new government will do short-term funding and then look to create another agency. A new agency comes on the scene, oftentimes duplicating what is already there.

Is that same pattern still continuing?

[Paul Johnston]

I think there is also the belief, for some reason, that something new will be more effective, as opposed to investing in experience and connections and building on those. So I think it's more a matter of reviewing and looking at the outcomes we would like and the work that's being done, as opposed to believing that something new will hold some kind of magic answer. I think you're right that for many years that cycle seems to be repeating itself.

There is the question, too, of the pressure around the political nature of investment in funding. Sometimes there is an issue that becomes more prominent and funding seems to be targeted to that place, and some of the other things fall into the background.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

We have had a bit of a debate ongoing—including yesterday, when it was fairly prominent—about whether we should deal with organized street gangs differently than we do with the traditional stereotyped Mafia, Cosa Nostra types of groups, or the bikers. I'd like to hear from you if you have any comments on that. Can we use our traditional methods of fighting those groups, that is, by getting at the money sources and other mechanisms, or do we approach these differently?

I want to go that far because there was some discussion about whether we should have, within our Criminal Code or criminal justice system, a different definition for street gangs or youth gangs from what we presently use, still recognizing that they are somewhat organized but different from the adult ones.

[Floyd Wiebe]

I think in my speech I referred to that very instance. When I read the new bill--I've read so many bills in the last few days, fourteen or fifteen, I don't remember which one it was--where it discusses organized crime, basically, as I recall, it's just a very simple one-liner, that if there are five or more people getting together and doing a crime that's an indictable offence, they constitute organized crime. I'm sorry, but five little Mad Cowz who are 13 years old are not the same as five Zig Zag Crew members or five Hells Angels getting together and creating a crime.

As I said, I'm not a lawyer. I don't know how you can define that. Currently, organized crime laws are already a horrible thing, because every time the courts get it, it falls apart. We built a huge courthouse in Manitoba, five or eight years ago, and it fell apart. The legal department, the justice department, really needs to take this, analyze it, and actually split it.

I'm saying, similar to aboriginal sentencing, somehow we got to the point where we sentence aboriginal people in this country different from other people because of how they got to where they are and how they got to create that crime. How can we then not do the same thing with organized crime, because it's just too broad?

I've met too many of these kids in the Youth Drug Stabilization Act. I've met too many kids at coffee shops—with Kelly, in fact. You have this little kid who comes from a horrible situation, and he has his bros and he has his homies, and they go out and do some stupid things like steal cars, and some of them steal a lot of cars. My truck was stolen by one of them. Yet you cannot take those same kids and treat them exactly the same under one bill that says “You're five people and you were doing something that's an indictable offence, so we're going to treat you the same as a Hells Angel.” I fear that, because with judges today—and believe me, I've been in front of a lot of them—this judge will do this and this judge will do that, and you need that input to those judges from the attorneys, from the prosecutors, that these are not the same. They cannot be just put into jail because of this law.

[Kelly Holmes]

I'm not condoning crime. None of us here are. We understand that it's bad. We are the ones who listen to the news and hear about the stabbings every weekend here. But I just would like to caution you to consider that most of them, whether they're adults by age, cognitively they're not. They're functioning around age 13 to 16. There's lots and lots of FASD in this province. There are lots of huge cognitive deficits, learning disabilities, trauma-related stuff. To stick them in a regular penal institution or environment, we are breeding a stronger, better criminal.

They need intervention and they need help.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Are there any models we can look to elsewhere in the world in terms of dealing with youth crime? I mean that in terms of prevention, intervention to reduce the rates.

[Laura Johnson]

I was at a conference in Toronto a couple of weeks ago. An interesting concept--and of course it would need some adapting--was a program, the whole theme of which is to stop killing people. It is where they work with gang members, and they're not saying to get out of the gang; they're not saying anything other than, when somebody has been murdered, they rally. They have outreach workers who have been in gangs, who go and connect with the gang members and work with them, and the whole focus is that they're trying to get them to stop killing each other.

What I like about the program is that they're connecting with the gangs--and these are big gangs, these are not Mad Cowz or B-Siders, or whatever--they're connecting with the gangs as people, as individuals in the communities where they are. They're getting to know them and they have more influence.

What they say is, with that, you have the most influence in trying to draw somebody out of a gang immediately after they've been victimized. So it's trying to get to people as soon as possible, because I truly believe that there's a place for the criminal justice system, but when you incarcerate somebody, many of their peers are in that same system and it's that group mentality and thinking as a pack. What we need to do is get these individuals to think as individuals and have self-confidence to go beyond that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you.

We'll move on to Monsieur Petit, for seven minutes.

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you all for being here this morning.

The questions we have for you relate to a study on organized crime. Within organized crime, we find the segment of young people who may move into more organized groups like the Hells Angels or other groups like the Bandidos.

You have been telling us about several possible approaches. You have referred to mental illnesses. We are well aware that a lot of young people and even older people suffer from mental illness and end up in the penitentiary system. We have a problem. The system for treating illnesses is under provincial jurisdiction and not solely federal jurisdiction. So we have a conflict. The fact is that a lot of people have mental illnesses and are in the penitentiary systems.

Next, Ms. Holmes, you talked about fetal alcohol syndrome. In fact, we spoke yesterday with people who work with aboriginal people. They said they are even thinking of banning alcohol on reserves because all the reserves are not close to cities, and there is a real problem. However, when we talk about banning alcohol on a reserve, we are talking about prohibition. When we talk about prohibition, everyone says it doesn't work, because in the 1930s, it didn't work. So now we have another problem. We are having to deal with several problems.

You are on the ground. Mr. Wiebe, you testified. You have been through something extremely tragic where you lost an important member of your family, your son. That is what I understood. Yesterday, we talked about problems young people have with street gangs. They recruit young boys and girls, 12 or 13 years old. They use them for prostitution because it's more profitable than buying drugs. The young girls and boys sell their bodies and make money for the older ones. There are multiple levels.

It's all very well to say that we don't want to lock them up, but we have to try to find a way of preventing 12- and 13-year-olds from prostituting themselves on the streets. You have this in Winnipeg. It happens in Alberta and it happens in Quebec City, in my city. It is happening everywhere. So what suggestions would you have for us, precisely to prevent these young girls and boys from then falling in with organized crime because of drugs?

The main problem is drugs. They are produced and handed out. A moment ago, one person was saying that we have to be able to control the drugs supplied by the gangs. Nonetheless, we aren't in favour of giving young people drugs to keep them with us. We will have a problem.

So how do you think it can be done? Drugs are currently the main problem facing young girls and young boys. Because of drugs, they prostitute themselves, they give money to the older ones and they are unable to get out.

Who would like to speak? The question is open to everyone.

[Kelly Holmes]

Currently, provincially, we are working on this initiative called Street Reach, where a number of our organizations bonded together. There were eight executive directors, and we put together a strategy to deal with that.

Our girls who are on the street or have been put out on the street by their families in some cases are as young as eight. This initiative was born out of a policeman who took this young girl off the street and had nowhere to put her and drove around the city for 17 hours looking for a place.

We don't have a place because we don't have funding. We're expected to be the first responders on the street to help these kids in an emotional way, and we do not have stable funding. We're expected to keep these youth stable, and we do not have stable funding. For us to do any kind of that work, any of that emergency response, we have to be well funded in a stable way. That's been said over and over. It can't be repeated enough.

In terms of prohibition, we've got to come into this century. That's not the answer. We don't even have enough information about FASD to treat it. There's not enough research going on in any capacity with regard to mental health.

We've been at a two-day conference on gangs where we listened to correction officers talking about people: inmates, who have an IQ of 72 or less, brain injury, cognitive deficits, and a range of co-occurring disorders.

We have mental health with one aspect of the government over here, health over here, addictions over here, and nobody is talking to one another. People need to talk to one another. That's a huge beginning.

I've listed recommendations and I have the brief. A number of recommendations came out of the Senate report and they're being repeated over and over again.

We don't want those youth on the street as much as you don't want them there. They shouldn't be criminalized for being on the street or being a victim of their family. Their families are victims—it's generational. There need to be intervention points, and we need support to do our intervention.

I can't be more clear.

[Paul Johnston]

We do, as an agency, provide some programming for the girls you're identifying, in cases where child and family services would be involved and there would be one-on-one staffing, but the challenges are great, in terms of trying to keep them safe and away from some of those influences.

As far as programs go, I think the other piece, in the position we are in, is that when you start to look for solutions you are moving outside of the justice department. A part of the challenge is the partnering of various departments. Child and family services, education, and health are all a part of that solution. In terms of a coordinated plan, often you start talking to a gang member and one of his issues is that he has no place to stay.

I think the problem is identified very clearly in the justice department. When we have youth being held in our youth centre and their release date is coming up, we wonder what we are going to do, what we are going to try to provide to support things being different. I think, at times, for us, there is the issue of the fragmentation of the approaches since there are concerns in each department. Child and family services may have a concern, but if someone's locked up in the youth centre, it becomes a justice concern. It only comes back to child and family services upon release, so it's not a cohesive plan. A number of years ago, the province attempted to establish a youth secretariat that brought the five departments of government together to coordinate strategies for youth. Just as a parent does, you deal with all aspects of your child's involvement. The difficulty of making that work and the difficulty of departments sharing not just staffing but funding seems to be the undoing of that. Certainly from my perspective, it held a lot of promise, in terms of coordinated efforts and the acknowledgement that for many of these youth, all of those departments bear some part of the solution in terms of strategies.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you.

We'll move on to Ms. Mendes for five minutes.

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Thank you to all of you for being here.

I know you've just touched on that subject, but I really would like to see it from the federal level. What could we do? What could the federal government do to avoid the recruitment of underage children to commit adult crimes? The bottom line is that's what they're used for. How can we help? I know the funding is a big part of it, and I defend it fully, but are there suggestions from the justice department or from the victims ombudsman, as my colleague mentioned? Are there ways to plead?

[Michael Owen]

I think we've spoken on not only the funding, but the application forms and the whole process for federal funding that goes to local organizations. It's extremely complicated. Often despite what you try to do, what you start out trying to do, once you get through the process, you end up doing something different. It is almost like the bureaucrats basically tell you what you're supposed to be doing rather than listen to what needs to be done. Often, I think, that is the feeling. Often the funding comes late, and as an agency, you're expected to carry the program for a while, even before you have confirmation that you have funding. It's just not a very friendly system. In fact, some of us don't even bother applying for federal funding any more because it is so complicated and labour-intensive. You have to spend hours and hours filling out applications and evaluations and doing all kinds of reports, and you give all kinds of information that doesn't seem to be relevant to what you're trying to do in the first place. It's extremely complicated, extremely time-consuming, and for the most part it doesn't address the need that you wanted to serve in the first place.

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Would you think that the youth secretariat idea that you had here in the province of Manitoba applied federally would be something that could help you, having different federal departments involved?

[Paul Johnston]

I certainly think from my experience that when you have a forum and you have in the room the people who are focused on a solution, you come up with a much better plan and commitment to working together. A recent example of using federal funding to try to address a problem would be the use of the housing and homelessness money. Some things that were developed in Manitoba are currently in Manitoba and they wouldn't have been here without that. Certainly we received funding from that for our youth shelter, which is an eight-bed place where kids can show up and spend the night safely, or a few nights safely, if they have nowhere to go. The question of whether or not that will continue after the end of this funding year or whether the province will pick it up--and we're not sure--leaves it in limbo. I agree that often discussions on solutions break down because they are not the responsibility of the group that's in the room, so if you have everybody in the room, you have a much better dialogue, I think.

[Michael Owen]

You could ask for it to include both the provincial and the federal departments.

[Floyd Wiebe]

If you realize, the people in this room, that it's your budget that controls the $3.1 billion in prisons--it's your budget here, right?--I think it makes sense, then, for you to figure out, with the ten provinces, why you're inheriting all those people from the provinces into your federal prisons. You're the one who is paying for it.

If you want to reduce how much you spend on that, then I think you need to listen to all of these people here who are all doing provincially--most of us, provincially--because we're actually the ones who are trying to prevent the ones ending up federally....

When you ask, Mr. Fast, that we might deal with federal issues, to me that makes the most sense. It is a federal issue when the provinces are dealing with all of the funding for all these prevention programs. I think getting all those people in the room makes total sense, getting what he said--the provincial level, making it federal.... Your question is absolutely right on.

[Kelly Holmes]

Just to piggyback on what Floyd is saying, it's about talking together and working together. We have to, with limited resources. We understand that government has limited resources in different areas as well. Maybe I'm naive, but it would be wonderful if the provincial government and the federal government could work together around some of these issues if you find that you're getting the same repetition across the nation.

One other point.... There is a national body I'm involved with--there are a number of them, actually. It's called the learning community. We learn from each other, from B.C. to St. John's, and we share our learning about best practice and how to best deal with the youth we're serving. It's been a wonderful opportunity not having to reinvent the wheel. That's a national initiative. That could have support. That could be backed federally and promoted so we're spending less money, we're working together. A number of the problems we're seeing are Canada-wide.