Justice Committee on March 30th, 2010

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you.

We'll move on now to Ms. Mourani.

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

Good morning, everyone. Thank you very much for being here today and sharing your testimony with us.

Mr. Wiebe, first, I would like to offer you my sincere condolences on the loss of your son. I admire your courage and also your great humanity. Losing a member of our family can sometimes leave us feeling extremely angry and blind. I welcome your testimony, because of the strong emphasis on compassion, prevention, and trying to save children before they become criminals.

I am also a member of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. A few days ago, we heard the Minister of Public Safety and all the other officials. My question was specifically about prevention. In the current budget, and subsequent budgets, there is really no increase in terms of prevention, and this was confirmed to me. The budget varies between $30 million and $60 million for the whole of Canada.

I am looking at you, and you seem to be exceptional people, in your need to rescue young people, even though you have only crumbs, little bits of money, to do it with. Looking at the budget, we see that there is still no increase. This was the first point I wanted to confirm, that there will be no increase for prevention. That has been the case for several years, going back before the present government.

I would also like to talk to you about the Young Offenders Act before getting to my question. That act is intended to criminalize young people 14, 15 or 16 years old, according to the provinces.

I have been listening to my colleagues asking what we can do. In fact, you have been telling us from the outset: prevention, prevention, prevention.

There is no more money being invested in prevention. The NCPC has told us that it can't even apply for any more projects because there is no more money in the budget, until 2001-2012. What do we do if there is no more money being invested in prevention? They don't want to invest in prevention, but they want to hand out harsher sentences to young people who may have committed murders or serious crimes at the age of 14 or 15 or 16. So the real question to ask is this: what do we do after talking about prevention and not criminalizing young people? In fact, we find ourselves with a system that will do that, that will criminalize young people and won't invest a penny more in prevention.

[Kelly Holmes]

Instead of building bigger, stronger jails, take that money and infuse the jails with staff that can look at mental health issues, rehabilitation, and other avenues. It's not just about prevention, prevention; it's about support the intervention. You may look at that as prevention. Prevention to me is educating kids before they even get there. We're at the stage where we're already intervening and we're trying to stop crime. So, yes, that's my comment.

[Floyd Wiebe]

In our case we had one juvenile, the mastermind behind TJ's murder. He was held in the Manitoba Youth Centre for 32 months. Even though the murder happened prior to the Youth Criminal Justice Act--it came in on April 1, 2003--my son was murdered January 5, 2003, so he came under the YCJA instead of the YOA.

Not that I'm commenting about the YCJA so much, but just based on what Kelly said, this individual who masterminded my son's murder received absolutely zero intervention in his life from a psychiatrist, psychologist, nothing. I'm not supposed to know this, but I found out. We victims have an incredible way of finding things out we're not supposed to. I was so disturbed, even though I was enraged that this person—he was three weeks shy of his eighteenth birthday—had the capacity to convince three other people to murder for him because they did not even know my son. Even though, as Mr. Murphy said, I could be filled with rage at that, what I was more enraged with was this person was held in an institution for 32 months before he was acquitted and received absolutely no help. So what does that say to this peer? First of all he goes into a youth institution, he's held there for 32 months, gets absolutely no mental help. Do you think he needs mental help? He just had someone murdered.

It's hard for me to even go there, yet nothing happened. So what Kelly said is absolutely correct. This person needs to be dealt with; otherwise he'll kill again, because not only did he not get intervention for 32 months, he got off, which is totally another thing. Think of the power this young man may have in his system right now.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you.

We'll move on to Mr. Dechert for five minutes.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for sharing your views with us today. I'm very impressed with what you had to say, and I thank you also for the good work you do through your organizations.

Mr. Wiebe, I want to express my condolences to you and your family. I'm sorry this tragedy happened in your family.

You said a number of things that struck me this morning. One was with respect to the different types of criminal organizations that are out there. I get it that there are street gangs that are organizations of young people who perhaps lack economic opportunity, who are looking for a place to belong, or have other social needs. Then there are more serious criminal organizations that prey upon them.

I think you mentioned something called a puppet club; you used that term. You said there was an individual there who, now that he's facing 12 years in jail, suddenly wants to change. What organization is he from? Where does he fit into the whole picture? How does he or the organization that he represents prey upon these other street gangs?

[Floyd Wiebe]

That example was a Zig Zag Crew member. Actually he's a former Zig Zag Crew member. This individual was raised right next door to me; he lived there basically his whole life, so I know him very well. He did get involved in the Zig Zag Crew. In Winnipeg, you have to understand this, the Zig Zag Crew members.... I doubt any person on this panel.... None of those crew members are the ones these people help, because they got there for different reasons. As I said in my speech, he got there because of choice, because of the money, and all of that stuff.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

He essentially is a criminal businessman.

[Floyd Wiebe]

He's absolutely a criminal businessman. He will admit that to me every time I visit him. He knows what he's doing. He knew when he came out of jail that if he ever got caught with gun involvement again, he would get a minimum ten-year sentence. He knew that. If he was trafficking heroin, he was going to get a minimum two-year sentence. He still made that decision.

There is a huge difference between him and the people that this crew then goes down. It goes from Asian organized crime that has all the drugs, to the Hells Angels, to whoever has equality with them, to the Zigs, to the Mad Cowz, to all the B-siders. There's that pyramid schedule.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

What do we need to do to prevent people like him from getting into business and preying on these other gangs?

[Floyd Wiebe]

I don't know that the other panel members will agree, but I believe in laws that take people like the Zig Zags and above, those public clubs.... And, yes, I might disagree with the panel about jails. But I'm sorry; these people are calculated, organized people who don't come from the regular homes that all these people are talking about. I believe, personally—this is just me—that they need to be put away for a long time.

When I visit him in the remand centre--I'll visit him again, and I will still support him—I tell him that he is going down for this, and he agrees. He absolutely agrees.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

If we send him, and others like him, a message that we're not going to tolerate their behaviour, can we stem the flow of people like that?

[Floyd Wiebe]

I personally believe that you can.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Okay. Thank you very much for that.

Mr. Johnston, I want to ask you a question. You mentioned that we're competing with street gangs to employ some of these youth, and it's a tough competition.

How much can a gang member earn dealing drugs and putting women on the street for prostitution? What are we talking about here in terms of dollars?

[Paul Johnston]

I don't know that I can quantify that for you, I'm afraid.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

What's the kind of lifestyle they find themselves in when they do these things?

[Paul Johnston]

It is the differentiation that Floyd made. These are not necessarily people committed to that lifestyle, but for a variety of reasons, they're involved in it. There's the positive piece for them, in terms of the money, but there's also the violence. I mean, when we talk about the risk and the violence, the youth we work with are victims of that as well. It's a mixture, in terms of that lifestyle. I think that the opportunity to change is not simply related to money. It's related to relationships. It's related to positive feelings.

We talk about trying to intervene at age 10 or 12. Sometimes the opportunity comes at 16 or 18 or 20. Sometimes it's related to a significant influence--the death of a friend, the birth of a baby, a relationship--and they're willing to make the choice at that time. If they have relationships, not with family but with organizations, unfortunately, at this point, they can reach out to them at that point when they're ready.

It's not necessarily competing on a financial basis. It is that relationship. It is that belief in them and pointing out to them the strengths they have and nurturing that piece that then moves them to the point where they can change.

This is maybe more of an answer than you want, but on the concept of how people change, one of the concepts is to build a pile of stones or to tip a balance. You're adding to that with each piece in a positive or negative way. Programs that have contact with people are able to add to that. You're never quite sure when you're going to reach that tipping point or when you're adding that last stone that allows them to have the motivation and the support and the energy to change.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you. Your time is up.

We'll go to Mr. Murphy for five minutes.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Over the days we've had this hearing, there's probably been some substantial agreement on this committee. I'm hearing it from Mr. Wiebe, and there's some head-nodding, that the identifiable kingpin, the puppet master, the organized crime mastermind who is using youth, who is looking for the manna, which is the money, who uses the tools, which are the drugs and the guns and the human trafficking, should do time. That person should be removed from society and should get treatment, perhaps. But deterrence and removal are important. We get that.

I hope there's agreement that the pawn, the 14-year-old from a broken home who is led by the allure of gang membership, who's used and does a serious crime but as a youth is not permanently responsible, shouldn't get that, at least without some efforts from the community and the system. Those cases may be easy for us to deal with.

It's the middle ground. It's always the middle ground. What about the youth who does the adult crime and is sort of halfway up the ladder? What about the victims? What about the possibility of rehabilitation? What about the deterrent effect?

We've talked mostly about rehabilitation this morning, and we get it. We understand it. It's on the deterrent effect where I think there might be some difference of opinion on this committee and in Parliament and in the community. People think that if you sentence somebody harshly, and for a long time, that will send a message.

Many judges we've heard from, and police officers even, have said that for youth, deterrence doesn't work. They're different from us. Some of us are younger, of course. But you know, it doesn't work the same way. Deterrence does not work, and that's why it's not specifically in the YCJA, notwithstanding international covenants on how children are a different entity.

What do you have to say to us about that middle ground? We're heading into this possible YCJA reform. You'd hate to put away a youth who did an adult crime who could be rehabilitated, but you'd also hate to return someone who's completely impenetrable and is a danger to society. What should we do about calibrating that? I hate to use the word “recalibrating”.

[Michael Owen]

I'm just wondering if the system we use for young people should be an adversarial one. I sometimes think it gets in the way of justice when you have long delays caused by defence lawyers, just because they know that the kids are going to get time and a half if they've been in remand for a long time, and things like that.

I go way back to the old Juvenile Delinquents Act. At that point the focus of the system was different. It had to do what was best for the individual child or adolescent. Certainly there were faults with that system, but there were some strong points too. I think the faults in the system were really there because people weren't really trained or qualified to maybe look at things at that point the way they should have. I really wonder if we've actually done a disservice because we got into the adversarial system. Each side has to make the strongest case and exaggerate it. It's a fight rather than just saying “How can we really affect this child?”

As long as we have an adversarial system we won't be able to really look at that. That might lead to a solution to some of these grey areas, where you can take a look at a person and say, “What is the chance of this person being rehabilitated? Is this person way too far? Is there too much of a danger to society?”

You can't just sort of sit down and contemplate that. There are arguments on both sides, and you sort of wonder if justice is really being served at that point.

[Laura Johnson]

I think that there is a place for each. These are grey areas, so there are absolutely places for prevention, intervention, and rehabilitation. There are the strict sentences, and there have to be consequences for actions or we're not going to address this, and there's the middle ground in between.

I want to echo what Kelly said earlier about resources within prisons and adding to them--and we're talking about psychologists. You can do programming within prisons, so if you're in that middle ground.... I'm sure all of us have visited individuals who were incarcerated and continued with programming. You can be incredibly effective because they shouldn't have access to the drugs in there. They enjoy those visits, and you can build a relationship because you're showing that you're not backing away because they're incarcerated. So maybe we can enhance that area by providing some of those pieces for rehabilitation while they are serving their time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

We'll move on to the government side.

Mr. Woodworth, you have five minutes.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you very much.

I've been happy to hear the direction in which we've been going in the last few minutes. I want to reassure everyone that our government does take the view that there needs to be a balanced approach. We have been putting resources toward prevention, rehabilitation, and the more punitive solutions.

In my own riding of Kitchener Centre, for example, $3.2 million was given to a coalition of local community groups not that long ago to develop a gang prevention strategy. This kind of effort is going on all across the country. I wanted to reassure everybody of that.

Having said that, I hear the message loud and clear this morning that you folks are involved in the efforts around prevention. That is an essential piece of the puzzle, so I'll extend my thanks to you also for the work you're doing.

It would help me to know, to keep it in perspective, what the dollars are. In a certain sense we can never spend enough on prevention, but in another sense there are some optimum targets. This being a fact-finding tour, I wonder if each of you feels comfortable telling me what your existing budget is, what your optimum budget would look like, and how much you think the government should, on a national basis, direct toward crime prevention for youth. I would like to get that kind of information from each of you serially.

Mr. Johnston, you're in the lucky spot at the end, if you wouldn't mind starting us off.

[Paul Johnston]

This is off the top of my head, but certainly if I look at a program that we run through the skills link funding, and this would be a concrete example where we're just renewing a contract, the request is to reduce the amount we spend compared to last year. So we did some initial work, and then as it goes through the process to go up to Ottawa and back--and this is a request of between $300,000 and $400,000 for an 18-month program to work with youth, building skills through community service activities and workshops--some of the things that were cut out would be something like recreation. They said, “We are not going to fund recreation and we want you to reduce it by $4,000 in your budget.”