Justice Committee on March 25th, 2013

[Marlene Deboisbriand]

Maybe I can just add a quick something. There are a couple of programs like the one the Police Athletic League here in Ottawa has—it got a prize yesterday, actually—that received funding from the crime prevention fund for several years. It has clearly demonstrated the outcomes we want. Once the funding ends, the club then has to look for alternate funding sources. Often we turn to the corporate sector. Unfortunately, it's not always easy to get corporate sector support for the kinds of programs we're talking about and the kind of youth we're targeting with these programs. Just from a marketing point of view, for example, it's easier to support an education program.

I just want to add that this in effect is a barrier to maintaining and sustaining the program in the long term, as is transferring, if you wish, the funding from the federal government to an alternate funder.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

While we're on the subject of funding, further down in the brief—and you referred to it in your answer—you talk about the youth gang prevention fund and the youth justice fund. You indicated that the amount of annual funding under these two programs is insufficient to address the growing problem of gangs. I presume this isn't a new cause you're advancing. Can you tell me what the results of your representations have been on these issues? Also, when you say that $12 million in annual funding is insufficient, can you give us some sense of what amount would provide a noticeable impact?

[Dr. Rachel Gouin]

This is something Boys and Girls Clubs of Canada has been advocating for several years, since before my time there. We would be looking for the federal and provincial governments to invest 5% of the amount they invest in the criminal justice system. From the reports that have been made over the years, I think that would be the amount we'd be looking for.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

You have one minute, Mr. Casey.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

That brings me right to Minister Swan on investments in the criminal justice system. Any time you have mandatory minimum sentences and reverse-onus provisions with respect to persons seeking bail, you're looking at more complicated prosecutions, greater terms of incarceration, fewer plea bargains, all of these things, to the extent that the sentences involved within provincial jurisdiction are going to affect your coffers, sir. Have you costed the likely impacts of these changes? If so, what do they look like?

[Andrew Swan]

I can tell you that public safety does come at a cost. In Manitoba, just like in other provinces that have higher-than-average crime rates, we know that our costs are higher.

But you know, when it comes to providing guaranteed consequences for somebody who chooses to endanger my community, and to put young people at risk, we believe that having appropriate measures in place—as I said, guaranteed consequences—is worth the cost.

Mr. Casey, gangs know the law. They know that if they get young people involved, if they have an 11-year-old running drugs for them, there won't be a consequence.

I'm not suggesting in any way that there should be a consequence for an 11-year-old, but those who bring people into gangs know that if individuals are under 18, there will be a very different regime if the youth is caught.

Again, I'm not suggesting that's incorrect, but gangs know the law. We want gangs to know that this provision exists, that if they're caught recruiting, trying to get youth in, there will be a consequence. I think there's a real value to that in terms of protecting young people and giving the police the tools they need to work with gangs.

Just this morning, Devon Clunis, the new chief of the Winnipeg Police Service, was on the radio in Winnipeg talking about intentions to try to meet with gang leaders, to actually sit down and lay down the law, if you will.

I'd sure like Chief Clunis to have Bill C-394 on the books and be able to explain to gang members that if they go out into our communities and try to pursue young people, the police will have the tools they need to deal with them.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you, Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Casey.

Our next questioner, from the Conservative Party, is Mr. Albas.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank all of our witnesses today for coming and sharing your expertise with this august body.

I want to focus on a few things, particularly Minister Swan's comments.

Minister, obviously this bill relates to creating new indictable Criminal Code offences that prohibit the recruitment, solicitation, encouragement, or invitation of another person to join a criminal organization for the purpose of enhancing that criminal organization to facilitate or commit indictable offences.

My colleague Mr. Seeback has also included an amendment for consideration in terms of coercion. This offence would then be punishable by a maximum of five years' imprisonment, with a mandatory minimum penalty of imprisonment of six months if the individual who's recruited is under the age of 18.

How do you think this mandatory minimum penalty will help deter gangs that prey on the most vulnerable in our society?

[Andrew Swan]

Becoming involved in a gang is a long-term commitment, unfortunately. I don't want to overplay the hand, but it can be a life sentence for young people who live out the rest of their days in a gang.

We believe that guaranteed consequences for gang members who pursue this kind of activity are appropriate. There needs to be a message sent.

We know that gang members individually may not always act in a rational way, but we know that gang leaders know the law. We think having Bill C-394 in place will be something else for them to think about before they go out into our communities.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

I appreciate hearing that, Minister.

Minister, you've addressed the concept of adding locations, of including them in the bill. That's something you've encouraged. The question that brings to my mind is this. In your response to Madame Boivin's questioning, you mentioned that you weren't in support of having an extra penalty above the mandatory minimum if it were at a location like a Boys and Girls Club, or a park, or a playground. How would that work? Wouldn't it be more of an advantage to someone like Mr. VanMackelbergh to be able to say that anywhere someone tries to recruit a child under the age of 18, we will have the tool to immediately charge them with a mandatory minimum sentence of six months?

I just don't understand how adding locations without adding a commensurate increase in the mandatory minimum would help the situation at all.

[Andrew Swan]

No, I think the question and response had to do with the five-year maximums set out in proposed Bill C-394. We would agree with expanding the circumstances under Bill C-394 to take into account where the recruitment is taking place.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Don't you think judges would be able to do that as well, though? Wouldn't they be able to look at a situation and say, “This was done right outside a Boys and Girls Club, and I need to send a very strong signal that justice is being served here”?

I'm just asking that question.

[Andrew Swan]

If I were satisfied that this would happen, I wouldn't have made the request.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Okay. That's fair enough.

Moving on to your other request to include coercion if someone were to leave a gang, I'm just...and again, George spoke about the burden of proof.

To my mind, the idea is that we're trying to put up a barrier to even going to someone at that age. If someone were to leave a gang, and they were then threatened or intimidated with violence or threats—graffiti, or a brick through their window—aren't there other provisions under the Criminal Code that could be added? You would have the initial coercion with the mandatory minimum sentence, and then another charge to add onto that.

[Andrew Swan]

Well, if there is an actual act of violence committed against somebody who's attempting to leave a gang, of course that would be a Criminal Code offence and it would allow the police to become involved. But where the gang uses their force to intimidate somebody, to threaten somebody—not just the gang member, but potentially their family, their friends, their associates—we think that is serious enough that it should be included in Bill C-394.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Okay. Thank you. I certainly appreciate that.

I also want to thank the other witnesses. I'm sorry that we don't have a chance to speak to each one of you.

Well—pardon me—I bypassed you because I was very interested in Minister Swan's proposal, but I thank you for all the good work you do.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you, Mr. Albas.

Thank you for those answers.

Next, from the New Democratic Party, it's Mr. Jacob.

[Pierre Jacob, NDP, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank our witnesses for being here.

My first question is for you, Mr. Swan.

If I've understood correctly, you see this bill as a step in the right direction. It will start to tackle the growing scourge of street gang recruitment. You also spoke about a balanced approach, which, of course, places importance on suppression. I would like you to tell us about the necessary and appropriate measures and resources you have put in place. I am referring to the police officers, prosecutors and newly created special integrated units that enable you to adequately meet your suppression objectives.

And on the topic of prevention, intervention and social reintegration, I'd like you to tell us more about programs such as Lighthouses, Neighbourhoods Alive!, Project Gang-Proof, Turnabout, the Spotlight Unit, Ototema mentoring, the Ogijiita Pimatiswin Kinamatwin training program, and so forth.

[Andrew Swan]

How many hours do we have?

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Andrew Swan]

Look, I thank the member for the question, because it does highlight that although today we're talking about changes to the Criminal Code, we know there's more that all levels of government need to do. Certainly we think there are more partnerships we can strike to try to get at the heart of the problems plaguing perhaps your community, as they are mine.

We know that one of the best antidotes we have to young people being involved in gangs is for them to have a strong connection. If people remain in school, if they see that there is a positive outcome, whether it's being involved in a trade or going on to university or college or straight into the workforce, they are far more likely to remain out of criminal activity. Youth who have the opportunity to play sports or to be involved in a cultural or arts organization are far more likely to avoid criminal activity. Youth who have some other positive pull in their lives, positive influence in their lives, are far less likely to be engaged.

Our government has worked with our civic governments, Winnipeg as well as other municipal governments, to try to keep recreation centres open longer, to have things like Lighthouses to provide safe places for people to go. We're partnering a new after-school program, called After School Matters, to try to keep young people engaged after school closes at three or four o'clock until the early evening hours, partnering with local businesses to try to give them mentorships and positive things that they can take with them. We see investment in that front by governments as being a crime prevention strategy.

In terms of additional police officers and additional crown attorneys, we have taken on most of that responsibility ourselves, as a province.

There is the police officers recruitment fund, which was greatly appreciated, although I would note that the money has pretty much run out for that. Municipalities across Canada will now be facing the loss of officers unless either a provincial or municipal government steps up to meet that.

We've also embarked on hiring more crown attorneys. I know that other provinces have made some different decisions.

Again, public safety has a cost. We've been prepared to continue investing in police, in crown attorneys, in our court clerks, and in our legal aid system to continue to help to build stronger communities.

[Pierre Jacob, NDP, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Swan.

My second question is for the Boys and Girls Clubs of Canada representatives.

In your brief, which I found very informative, you said the government should address youth homelessness, invest in young people's development, offer them viable and rewarding alternatives to gang life, and provide restorative justice programs, as well as mental health services for youth who want to exit gangs. I also gathered that prevention was beneficial for society and that long-term investment in reliable programs was key. Could you please comment on that and talk about the work you do with these young people on a daily basis?

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

In less than a minute, please.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Dr. Rachel Gouin]

Sure, Mr. Chair.

I don't have the privilege of working directly with young people, myself, but the clubs do a tremendous amount of work, as you mentioned. They really consider all the programs and the support that young people need to succeed, take advantage of more opportunities and contribute to their country in a positive way.

There's a story that came out of the Winnipeg club. Given the amount of money needed to run the club, if it was to close down as a cost-saving measure, around 50 or so youth could be in trouble. That's a real possibility. Then, think about the cost savings in relation to what it would cost to put 50 young people in jail. It's equivalent to running the program for the entire year. It serves hundreds of youth. That's just to give you a small idea of the value of the work being done.