Skip to main content
EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, October 10, 1996

.1005

[English]

The Chair: We're back in session. This is the fourth day of the fourth week of our tour. I see that because we're in Winnipeg, in Lloyd Axworthy land, we have food. I don't know if those two things are related. If anyone in the audience wishes to partake of what we've provided, it seems we're a very civilized committee today, so please go ahead.

We're very happy to have with us the Attorney General and Minister of Justice of Manitoba, Rosemary Vodrey. I understand you have a presentation, which we are looking forward to hearing, and then we will have some questions.

Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Manitoba): Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and good morning to everyone here.

Let me be among the very first to welcome you to Manitoba. As you all know, Manitoba has a rich history and a vibrant multicultural community. We're also the proud home to many leaders in arts and sciences. I hope that while you're here you'll all get a chance to enjoy some of the fine things Manitoba has to offer.

Let me begin by complimenting the committee for travelling out to Manitoba to hear from our citizens directly. I believe it's imperative for politicians to consult with the people they represent.

In December 1993 our government held our province's first ever summit on youth crime and violence. The summit was attended by over 500 Manitobans from all walks of life, who put forward solutions to the problem of youth crime in our communities. The Young Offenders Act was discussed at length in many of the days' sessions, and most of the participants indicated their desires to see a stronger and more meaningful Young Offenders Act.

As the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General of our province, I have heard from countless Manitobans who share this view. I would like to give special recognition to one Manitoban who is in attendance this morning, Mrs. Audrey Borody. Mrs. Borody has collected the signatures of thousands of Manitobans on a petition that calls for a more effective and stronger Young Offenders Act. At the end of my presentation, I will be tabling the petition from this community group.

Our government was supportive of some of the amendments made during the last round of amendments to the Young Offenders Act. But having said that, there are many recommendations our government brought forward to the federal government that were not acted upon. From our perspective, this was disappointing.

I have requested Mr. Rock go even further in amending the Young Offenders Act, and I hope your committee's work can be a step forward in this process.

I want to be clear in my remarks here this morning that Manitoba is for the most part a safe and friendly place to live and raise a family. In spite of this, it's obvious that the people of Manitoba are becoming more and more concerned about their personal security.

While crime rates may be stable or decreasing, the nature of crime, particularly youth crime, is changing. It's clear that more crimes now involve weapons and organized crime is now a significant problem.

As in many other jurisdictions, gangs are a growing phenomenon in Manitoba. They're responsible for a whole range of criminal activities, from car theft to prostitution to extortion and recently a disturbing number of murders.

While we should make policy and law based on facts rather than on perceptions, we cannot ignore the fact that the public's fear of crime has a basis in reality, and that fear itself has a significant impact on the quality of people's lives. We have a responsibility, as politicians, to respond.

Our approach in Manitoba is threefold. We must make sure that the public has good information about the reality of crime and that Manitoba for the most part remains a safe and friendly place to live. We must also ensure that our citizens have information as to what they can do, both individually and as a community, to make their lives safer.

.1010

For example, Manitoba was the first province in Canada to develop a community notification process to alert citizens about the release of dangerous sex offenders. Our model has been used in several other jurisdictions as a guide in developing their own processes.

We have taken steps to better protect victims of crimes by restricting access to personal information in cases of domestic violence and stalking.

We have strongly endorsed the provisions of the Young Offenders Act allowing for community participation in the justice system. I'm proud to tell you that Manitoba's youth justice committees number well into the seventies. Our government believes we must enter into partnerships with communities to effectively address youth crime in our province.

We've developed a program called Safe at Work where law enforcement, the Manitoba women's directorate, the business community and the people of our province have come together with an objective to reduce risk and promote awareness of personal safety while in the workplace, or while going back and forth to the workplace.

Our government recognizes crime prevention efforts across our province through our annual crime prevention awards. We will soon be compiling an inventory on some of our communities' more innovative and successful crime prevention programs, and we'll be loading it onto the Internet for all Canadians to access.

I've named a few of the initiatives our government has put in place to help people feel safer and to provide information to enable them to take control of their own personal safety. Secondly, we must support and develop programs that prevent crime and give our young people an alternative to a life of crime.

Last Friday, I had the opportunity to visit the Salvation Army in the north end of the city of Winnipeg. Our government provides funds to its organization that enable it to keep its recreational and educational programs, such as midnight basketball, running.

We've also worked with some of our schools in a program called Streetpeace - No Need to Argue. This program challenged our youths to implement crime prevention initiatives within their own communities. The response was incredible and we had many youths working on drama productions to raise awareness of racial violence in their communities, or drawing up plans to reduce graffiti in their communities, rather than just being out on the street.

In addition, our government will soon be announcing an urban sports camp model that will bring and give our youths recreational programs. It will enhance our crime prevention initiatives and also act as a benefit to our community.

Our government fully realizes that a holistic cross-sector approach is needed to effectively address youth crime. We've recently instituted our child and youth secretariat, which was designed to improve the interworking relationship among the departments of justice, education, health and family services. The secretariat has improved our ability to respond to the needs of our young people in a more integrated and holistic fashion.

National and local media have reported widely on our rigorous consignment, or our boot camp model, in our youth correction system. I should note here that this is only one facet of a more integrated strategy to deal with youth crime.

Our secure custody youth facilities became more structured and more rigorous in September 1994. We can never forget that many of our secure custody youths have left victims behind. For this reason, our government has moved to make their stay in our institutions more rigorous.

I believe it's important to note here that rehabilitative programming and education are integral components of our boot camp model. In fact, our secure custody youth population now has schooling twelve months of the year.

.1015

In addition, many of our in-custody youths have never had a positive relationship with their communities. We have now made community service work an important part of a young person's stay in our institutions. In this way, the community and hopefully our young offenders will benefit.

I could continue to cite where our government has worked with communities to implement successful crime prevention initiatives. I'd be happy to forward more information to the committee if members would find it useful.

Thirdly, and this is the reason I'm here today, we must ensure our justice system works in a way that deters crime and keeps our dangerous people off the streets. We must ensure the public can see a youth justice system that is fair, efficient and meaningful.

In this regard, I have five recommendations I believe will build on the progress that has already been made. It is my intention to send your committee a more detailed written submission with respect to these recommendations. I do, however, want to mention them to you here today.

The first is parental responsibility. Our government believes ultimately the best way to prevent youth crime is through parental responsibility. The justice system must reinforce this theme at every opportunity.

I believe the best solution to the problem of youth crime does not lie within the justice system. Police officers, youth court judges, correctional and probation officers work very hard but are no substitute for a caring parent.

When a parent or parents take an active interest in their child's education and activities, the chances are high this child will turn out to be a law-abiding citizen. When parents are not involved or where parents do not set limits on their children's behaviour, their children are at a greater risk of violating the law.

As a former school psychologist, I've had first-hand accounts about and experience in how important a child's home life is. Victims of crime are often frustrated by a justice system which does little to compensate them for their injuries or their losses and in which the parent of the young offender seems to play a minimal role.

I have for some time now asked my colleague, Minister Rock, to enhance or to increase the role of the parent in the Young Offenders Act. We all recognize the importance of parental influence on a child's life. When a young person becomes involved with the law, the question ``Where are the parents?'' must be asked.

Given the lack of action on this issue at the federal level, our government will, in a matter of weeks, pass legislation. This legislation will require parents who, in the eyes of the court, have failed to properly supervise their child or make reasonable efforts to prevent their child from damaging property to be liable up to $5,000.

This legislation will do two extremely important things. First, it will give victims of property crime an easy vehicle to recover their losses. In my capacity as Minister of Justice, I have spoken to many victims of crime, and too often I hear they feel they have no role to play in the criminal justice system.

This legislation will help address the victims' needs, but it remains the view of our government that victims' needs are best addressed in the criminal law.

Second, it will bring parents back into the justice system. Our hope is it will make some parents seek assistance in caring for and controlling their children. As I mentioned earlier, the setting of limits is crucial to child development and we hope our legislation will facilitate this.

I should mention many parents of young offenders are doing all they can in rearing their children. For this reason, our legislation provides a series of factors or defences a hearing officer is to consider in rendering judgment.

We urge this committee to include measures in the Young Offenders Act that would make parents more responsible for their children. The act could follow Manitoba's model in setting out the principle that parents are presumed to be responsible for their children who commit criminal acts, while setting out factors to be considered by a youth court judge. The parents could be made jointly liable with their child for the payment of restitution to the victim.

.1020

As I've stated, we believe it is time to bring parents back into the youth justice system. This was, to a degree, part of the old Juvenile Delinquents Act. We are of the firm belief it should be reinstated in the next round of amendments to the Young Offenders Act.

Our government is also concerned that subsection 11.(4) serves to exclude parents from the court system at a time when they should be brought back in. As this committee knows, subsection 11.(4) requires the court to order the appointment of counsel on the request of the young person, even when the parents can afford to pay for this counsel. This section continues at a time when federal transfer payments for legal aid are decreasing. In the view of our government, the Young Offenders Act should require parents to reimburse the province for the cost of appointed counsel in circumstances where they can afford to do so - that is, where they would normally not qualify for legal aid.

The second area is age. I, with many of my colleagues across Canada, encouraged and supported amendments to the Young Offenders Act that made transfers to adult court presumptive for certain serious offences. I believe, however, the time has come to look at the minimum age. Our approach is not to change or to lower the minimum age, but our government continues to strongly believe we need a vehicle or a mechanism to reach down and bring into the justice system, in appropriate circumstances, those under the age of 12 who commit criminal acts.

I've heard from police about their frustration with having no effective remedy for children under the age of 12 who commit crimes. I've heard from victims who feel forgotten in a youth justice system that appears to ignore their plight when the offender is under 12 years of age. These people tell us we need a larger menu of options. Our government believes they are right. We must accept that there are children for whom no other system can provide an adequate remedy. We must remember that when a 10-year-old steals a car, not only the car owner is victimized; there is always a danger someone, including the 10-year-old, will be killed or seriously injured.

We must remember purse-snatching can have a devastating affect on the victim, particularly if this victim is elderly. In the interest of public safety, if the family and the child welfare system are unable to deal with certain children, then the youth justice system must be able to step in and provide a remedy.

Our government requests that your committee consider the development of a mechanism to bring children under the age of 12 into the justice system. Our government would be pleased to work with you on defining the parameters.

The third area is victims. Our government has made the rights of the victim a priority. Currently, as part of a sentence for an offence under the Criminal Code, the Food and Drugs Act or the Narcotic Control Act, a judge can impose a surcharge of up to 15% of the fine, or, if there is no fine, up to a maximum of $35. In Manitoba, we have similar provisions for provincial offences. The revenue from these surcharges goes directly to fund programs for victims. These have included treatment, housing, crisis intervention and emergency shelter.

Some of our provincial programs, such as women's advocacy, child witness support and criminal injuries compensation, are all funded in whole or in part through the surcharge. Through the victims' surcharge, we have been able to put in place and support a number of innovative programs to assist victims of crime. Unfortunately, the surcharge provisions of the Criminal Code do not apply to the Young Offenders Act. The programs I've described could be enhanced and new programs could be developed if the victims' surcharge provisions of the Criminal Code were expanded to the Young Offenders Act. Aside from the potential for enhanced programming, the surcharge reinforces the message that there is a connection between the crime and the victim.

.1025

The fourth area is weapons and gangs. I've already spoken about the changing nature of youth crime. Our government believes we need tougher measures in the Young Offenders Act to deal with offences where a weapon is used or where the activity is gang related. Section 85 of the Criminal Code provides for an additional sentence where a firearm is used in the commission of an indictable offence. I have strongly supported those parts of Bill C-68 which strengthen the Criminal Code penalties for criminals who use firearms, but I have also encouraged Mr. Rock on several occasions to expand those provisions to include all weapons, not just firearms. I encourage you to consider including similar provisions in the Young Offenders Act.

Our government also wants to see a Criminal Code amendment which would provide that where it can be shown that gang activity was a factor in the commission of a serious offence there should be a similar mandatory minimum sentence. Those offences should apply to the Young Offenders Act as well. There is a clear connection between gang activity and serious violent crime and it must be responded to with an equally clear message that it will not be tolerated.

Finally, on the publication of names, I acknowledge the progress that has been made on the issue of the publication of offenders' names, but I believe we need to go further. While the Young Offenders Act now provides a limited set of circumstances where the youth court can permit publication, it is a narrow, cumbersome, and restrictive process. Our experience in Manitoba has been that we have yet to find a single case where we are able to meet and prove the onerous task set out in subsection 38(1.5) of the Young Offenders Act, yet there have been cases where police or prosecution did feel the publication of the young offender's name was necessary in the interests of public safety. My recommendation is that the test simply be publication in the interest of public safety.

In the interests of time I've generally described the five areas where we believe the Young Offenders Act should be amended. I also mentioned earlier that a more detailed description will be contained in a written submission I'll be sending to the committee shortly. But I would like to take a moment to speak about cost-sharing as it relates to young offenders' services.

I've heard a suggestion from Mr. Rock that there be a shift of federal resources away from support for custodial services. I've already mentioned Manitoba's strong program of community-based justice committees, and I believe we're leaders across Canada in the establishment of these committees. Nevertheless, there will continue to be young offenders who commit offences so serious and who by their continuing offending pattern demonstrate that in the interests of public safety they must receive a custodial disposition.

Manitoba has developed an offender classification system which has been very effective in identifying offender needs and risk for reoffending. Manitoba's youth custody population contains 74% higher-risk youth. Higher-risk youth pose a danger to the community in terms of predatory behaviour. I would suggest that any attempt to manipulate reality through a cost-sharing formula is ill-conceived. Instead, cost-sharing should take a flexible approach, recognizing the local conditions and recognizing that they will vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

I want to thank you very much for the opportunity to give you our government's views on the Young Offenders Act and our recommendations for change. Our government believes a holistic approach is needed to address youth crime effectively, and we firmly believe part of this holistic approach is a strong and meaningful Young Offenders Act. Young people who leave victims behind must face consequences for their actions.

.1030

This committee is in a position to recommend the types of amendments that most Manitobans, and I'm sure most Canadians, have been calling for.

I want to thank you again for coming to Manitoba and giving Manitobans an opportunity to speak with you directly. I wish you good luck in your coming work.

I will provide for the committee the petitions, which I'll table. I think it would be important, just at the end, to read to you what the petition says:

These are names collected from Manitoba.

Thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you. The clerk will take them and we'll be happy to include them as part of our record.

Ms Vodrey: May I also just add something? I have a total on the number of names, and I think it is important to have it on the record. The total number of names contained in those petitions is 7,904, and I have submitted others from our province.

Thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you. That represents a lot of work.

Mr. St-Laurent.

[Translation]

Mr. St-Laurent (Manicouagan): You gave us quite an eloquent presentation about your views of the young offenders issue. My questions will be about your approach to this subject. You spoke at some length about punitive measures for young offenders aged 10 to 12, and your recommendations take into account victims' rights as regards treatment and compensation. You speak about broadening the firearms legislation to include all weapons, including knives and other similar weapons, I imagine. You also mentioned another significant point, namely, the publication of names. That is quite an important matter.

I was wondering how you would deal with the issue of parental responsibility, and, unless your remarks were incomplete, you seem to limit this responsibility to financial considerations. The parents of assailants would have a financial responsibility to the victims or the victims' parents.

You speak a great deal about punishment and go into it in some detail. In fact, this morning I've seen nothing but work on the punishment issue. As minister, how do you plan to deal with this problem? For street kids, committing crimes is a way of expressing themselves. Everyone agrees on that. These young people express themselves in an unhealthy way.

.1035

But there is an underlying problem and we have to try to get at its roots. We have to ensure that ten-year olds are not arrested for stealing cars, because this puts them into a type of prison system where they simply learn how to steal cars better without getting caught. With any luck, if these ten-year olds stay in detention long enough, they may learn the rudiments of bank robbery, and try them out later on.

I would like to hear you talk about the real problem. How do you plan to go about dealing with it? I think we have heard enough about punishment.

[English]

Ms Vodrey: Thank you very much for your question. You've raised a number of issues I'm happy to answer.

I will start by saying our goal is to put victims back into the system. We have had a great deal of focus on offenders for quite a long time and it's important for us to continue to keep that in the balance, but I believe that in our consideration now we have to put victims back into the system.

When we speak about children under the age of 12, our concern is that there be a mechanism. You will notice we didn't set a floor; we didn't set a specific age. But we know, because police tell us, that there are young offenders out there for whom the other systems of child welfare have proven unable to deal with these young people.

They have received some supports. Those supports outside of the justice system have not provided the event that has turned lives around. We believe there needs to be a mechanism to bring them into the justice system.

Let me remind you, as I said in my remarks, the justice system also provides programming. Our justice system for youth in Manitoba includes four areas in our institutional program. One of those areas is rehabilitative programming.

We recognize young people come to us with a lot of issues. Sometimes they are criminal thinking errors; sometimes they're addiction problems. Those are sometimes best attended to within the institutional setting.

You've mentioned too that young people sometimes go wrong. They learn to steal cars on the street. That is a darn good place to learn to steal a car. Leaving them on the street doesn't make it any better. When you bring young people into the institution, there are some programs to help them deal with that.

There's also some programming within our institutions that deals with community service - positive interaction with the community. We have lists, which I'd be happy to send to you, showing where our young people in secure custody now do something positive with the community. And they receive something positive back from the community, a positive recognition.

We also recognize that some of these young people - and as a school psychologist I experience it - are often truant from school. They don't attend; they don't have any engagement academically. Should these young people be brought into the youth justice system? Should they in fact be in our institutions?

We do have academic programming. We have it 12 months of the year, because we have a short time to deal with young people. If those young people happen to be with us in the summer months, there should still be that same opportunity to engage them in the process.

Should they come into the youth justice system and deal with our youth justice committees, we have now involved the community in a formal way to provide a consequence to that young person and to see that it's followed through.

In my presentation to you I wanted to focus on a holistic justice system, one that does deal with prevention and with the sharing of information between departments in our government. But there are some young people who do not appear to benefit from being outside of the justice system, as we see by their repetitive behaviour and by the kinds of criminal acts they commit.

We believe a mechanism must be developed to bring them into the system to benefit from what we already have in place in the justice system, though perhaps not to be applied in the same rigorous sense.

Your question was long. I know there are lots of questions.

You asked what we would do in terms of prevention. We have a number of programs. They're really grassroots programs.

We have a program called No Need to Argue. I spoke about that. Young people, in a positive sense, identify an issue in their community and work towards solving the problem. We've highlighted that. We've put it together. We've shared it across the province.

.1040

We have a program called Streetpeace, a youth-gang phone line that young people or their families can use to reach a professional and deal with concerns about involvement in gang activity. We have a child and youth secretariat to identify the needs of children in a holistic way, not in a way that chops them up and segments them.

We are attempting to assist and partner with the community and the prevention programs in this way, but some young children do need to be brought into the justice system. That's our view and the view of Manitobans.

[Translation]

Mr. St-Laurent: In the course of our work, we have met with groups of young offenders, in Montreal and elsewhere, who were undergoing a very specific type of treatment that was very effective. We asked these young offenders in the program what difference it would have made to them if the minimum age of 12 had been reduced to 10. I can tell you that we went through a very emotional moment when a young woman, a young offender who had recently left behind the world of prostitution and drugs, stood up with tears in her eyes and said with incredible assurance that at the age of 10, children don't need the police, but rather their mothers' arms.

What role do you see parents playing in your process? You spoke about parental responsibility, and the financial responsibility of the parents of young offenders with respect to their victims. How do you see the role of parents, not necessarily that of the parents of the victims, but rather that of the parents who form groups or associations to try to find solutions to reduce the youth crime rate?

[English]

Ms Vodrey: First of all, we do think parents should be involved in the criminal justice system. We think they should be responsible, along with their young person, especially where victims have been left behind. In Manitoba, we've made that clear in the area of our capacity, which is property damage. We think there should be a message from the Parliament of Canada that very clearly says parents must be responsible along with their child.

I said in my earlier remarks that there is no substitute for parenting. Social workers and police officers can't do the job of a parent. In our bill we have provided a defence for parents who have sought additional support in terms of their parenting skills, in terms of how the parents are better able to interact and communicate with a difficult child and to set better limits for that child. Where parents have sought that support and the support is available, we have provided for it to be a defence in terms of parental responsibility because parents are taking responsibility.

So I'm not sure that we differ on this question. I think it's important for us to recognize that young children need their mothers, but sometimes some children need the child welfare system and sometimes children just plain need the justice system because the efforts of families haven't worked.

You've raised two points: parental responsibility and bringing young people into the justice system. I hope I've been able to answer your questions.

Could I add another point? It seems I have a lot of things I want to talk to you about. You asked how parents can become involved. We welcome parents on our youth justice committees. We do have active youth justice committees. We welcome parental and other community participation in our youth justice committees.

.1045

Here's how it works in Manitoba. Through our youth justice committees, parents or a group of parents take an interest in and a responsibility for that young person in the community. Because it takes place in the young person's community, they see that child at the store and are able to provide the constant prompt to keep the young person going the right way.

[Translation]

Mr. St-Laurent: Is parental involvement working well in your process? Please give me a brief answer, because I have another question, and my time is almost up.

[English]

Ms Vodrey: We're always very happy when parents are in the process. We believe our youth justice committees have worked very well for some young people, and having parents involved has worked. We encourage it.

[Translation]

Mr. St-Laurent: If the process has worked so well, why is it that you have to put some teeth, and big ones at that, into your new vision of justice? This may not be new for you, but it is for me. I'm sure we disagree on this matter; we respect each other, but we do not agree.

So if things are working out so well with the parents, if the results seem to be so good, why are you so - I apologize for using this term - aggressive in your demands?

[English]

Ms Vodrey: It does work very well for some young people. There are young people for whom it doesn't work. Often they are young people who are repeat offenders or who have very clearly left victims behind.

Though we want parents to become involved in our system at any point they're comfortable with, a youth justice committee is one way. We still have to remember that there are victims. Through our youth justice committees there may be a way for that child and family to work with the victim, but I can tell you that it's clear to us in Manitoba that whether or not there has been a conviction, victims don't want to be left out of the system. They want to be recognized, and we have said parents must be responsible along with their young person.

Joining a youth justice committee is a voluntary action. Parents may or may not wish to become a part of that. We're saying now legislatively that we would like parents to become involved.

I can tell you - and I'm sure your experience tells you this also - that not every child has parents who are willing to become involved. That's what victims have found. When they approach families, families often wash their hands of it.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. St-Laurent. That went a little over your time, but it was interesting to all of us.

Mr. Ramsay, ten minutes.

Mr. Ramsay (Crowfoot): Thank you, Madam Chair.

I wish to thank our witnesses this morning. Your five recommendations reflect common sense and bring a sense of balance back to an act and a process that I think has been extreme in some areas. Your recommendations are well-balanced and I think would add to our youth justice situation.

I have only ten minutes. We spend a lot of money travelling all over the country and yet I've got less than ten minutes in which to ask questions, so I have to focus on my priority in terms of the issues that you have raised.

Before I do that, I'd just like to mention this. We were in Alberta yesterday and attended a closed-custody youth facility. We talked to some of the people there as well as to the staff. They gave us a list of what they call high-profile offenders in their institution. There were 35 out of 197.

I want to quickly read over just part of this list indicating some of the offences that some of the 35 high-profile people were in there for: one, restaurant murder; two, murder of a cab driver; three, murder; four, murder of a nine-year-old foster brother; five, manslaughter during breaking and entering; six, a planned hostage-taking at a facility.

.1050

I bring that to the attention of yourself and the committee because it brings a degree of awareness into this whole picture that very serious things are happening in society. When you talk about victims, it surely does leave a trail of victims, and serious damage and harm to those victims. So I believe the victims should be involved and I support your recommendations in that light.

To get to the point, I want to ask you a question. Professor Bala appeared before this committee and he too recommended that the age be reduced from twelve to ten. You don't go that far. You just say there should be a mechanism that allows for the serious ten- and eleven-year-olds, or anyone under twelve, to be moved into the justice system. I want to read you just part of what Professor Bala said in support of his recommendation. He said this:

He goes on to say:

He concludes by saying:

I have had some concerns about the change that occurred in 1984 when we moved from the Juvenile Delinquents Act to the Young Offenders Act. I submit this for your consideration and any response you might have to it. In 1984 the federal government to my mind abandoned its responsibility to protect society against the actions of those under twelve years of age. According to the federal government, no one under the age of twelve can now commit a criminal act. Although acts of theft, wilful damage, and assault are conducted by children under twelve, the federal government has divested itself of any responsibility to society regarding these acts. The responsibility has been left with the provinces, which must approach this area not with the authority of the criminal law but from the constitutional authority granted the provinces under child welfare. This has left Canada without a uniform response to delinquent children under the age of twelve.

Do you have an opinion on the constitutionality of this change, which occurred in 1994?

Ms Vodrey: I'm not sure I can give you a view on the constitutionality, but my concerns remain the same. There has been and there is now a lack of a vehicle to bring those young people into the justice system, where clearly, in some cases, that is the system required to deal with them. If we're speaking about offloading - I hesitate to use the word - a funnelling into one system and cutting out of another system the availability of the resources of that other system, that being the justice system, I am concerned about that. Our government is concerned about that.

There must be a way to bring those young people, particularly those who are accused of the heinous kinds of criminal act you discussed when you described some of the young people, or some possible examples, there must be a way to bring those young people into the justice system to provide a more satisfactory response, a more satisfactory response for the victim and very often a more satisfactory response for the young person, so the young person receives some kind of more holistic treatment.

.1055

I would, though, just like to comment on your introductory comments that we do not go far enough, or perhaps we don't go as far. We simply haven't spoken about a floor, which was the most common way to go. We didn't set a floor. In fact, we are interested in defining it, in many cases, by the criminal act. The criminal act is the defining feature that brings the young person into the justice system, so there isn't a question...or by repetitive criminal behaviour, so we can bring that young person into the justice system, and so young people under 12 can't be used by older youth and escape the criminal justice system, leaving victims behind. We believe we go further.

Mr. Ramsay: Thank you. I have time for just one more quick question.

I don't think it's possible for the federal government to offload its constitutional responsibility to maintain peace, order and good government to the provinces. That is not constitutionally possible, in my mind. If I'm wrong in that, then so be it, but if I am right in that position, that's exactly what happened in 1984. It attempted to offload its constitutional responsibility to the provinces, and as a result of that we do not have a uniform legal framework to deal with children who get involved in these very serious matters who are under the age of 12. So we have a patchwork of responses by the provinces across Canada in dealing with those issues. I think it's wrong and we're at the edge of a slippery slope, in view of the fact that we've had suggestions - not many of them - before the committee that perhaps the age should be raised from 12 to 14, or raised beyond the age of 12.

Again, do you have any comments or suggestions you'd like to leave with the committee and place on the record of this committee regarding this offloading that occurred in 1984, where it seemed so very clear to me that the offloading was not of resources but of constitutional responsibility, which I think is wrong?

Ms Vodrey: I would begin by saying that I share your concern about the lack of uniform response for criminal acts committed by young people under 12, and how that criminal act is responded to is left entirely to the jurisdictions. That is a difficulty. A uniform response sends the message to young people that there is a framework to deal with their criminal behaviour. So that is a concern.

I have the same concern in the area of parental responsibility, to digress slightly. We're passing an act in Manitoba, but there isn't a uniform response for parental responsibility across the country and we believe there should be. I can tell you that the Government of Manitoba would absolutely not support raising the age above 12. We want a mechanism to deal with those children under 12 years of age who commit criminal acts and leave victims behind, and we're prepared to work with you in the development of that mechanism.

The Chair: If I could just clarify, I think Mr. Ramsay has unintentionally done some of the evidence a disservice. There were very few suggestions that the age be raised beyond 12 - I think only one or two. I wouldn't go off on that tangent.

Mr. Gallaway.

Mr. Gallaway (Sarnia - Lambton): Thank you, Madam Chair.

From this side of the table, welcome.

I'll carry on in this vein of age, because you make a point we have heard previously, that police feel some frustration - you call it having no effective remedy for children under the age of 12 who commit crimes. I assume you're proposing some mechanism whereby children of whatever age, but under the age 12, could be swept into the system on occasion. Is that what you're suggesting?

.1100

Ms Vodrey: Yes, we're suggesting a mechanism for children under 12 to be brought into the system. We are not speaking about a floor for age.

Mr. Gallaway: Okay.

You've also stated that children must realize that there are consequences to their actions. I want to point out to you that yesterday - I read it last evening on the plane - The Edmonton Journal carried a story about a seven-year-old who stabbed a person. It was quite a serious offence. I'm assuming that under those circumstances - assuming this was just a random act of violence - you would propose that the child be swept into the criminal justice system.

Ms Vodrey: We don't have the mechanism to deal with it. We're prepared to work with you on the mechanism, but we have developed a risk assessment model in Manitoba that I believe might well be used in the circumstances of assessing which cases might be brought into the criminal justice system.

We aren't attempting to be arbitrary. We are saying that there are some screens. There are screens of the Crown. The Crown may well use our risk assessment tool to determine, based on that risk assessment, whether this case or this young person should be brought into the youth justice system or, based on that risk assessment, whether a child is better dealt with in the child welfare system.

We are attempting to provide a most reasonable mechanism but we have recognized - police and victims have told us - that there are a lot of young people, particularly ages 10 and 11 and some younger, who are committing criminal acts and whose repetitive behaviour indicates that the justice system is best equipped to deal with them.

Mr. Gallaway: With all due respect, Minister, I really find this difficult to understand. In the example I've cited, let's assume this child was swept into the system. You've complained about the lack of resources in legal aid. You've referred to the judicial system as being the answer, but at the same time your province is going to supply the program, in this case, to a young person.

What is the benefit - I'm trying to grapple with this - of filtering this under-12-year-old through the judicial system, with the attendant costs, and then, in the end, putting him or her into a system you are going to provide? Why wouldn't you just use your child welfare legislation?

Ms Vodrey: In my opening comments, I made a point of saying we are looking at expanding the options available for a young person who has committed a criminal act. That's our starting place.

The underpinning purpose of it is the protection of the public - the interest of public safety. It is clear that when some young people are not brought into the justice system, or where the justice system does not appear to have a significant opportunity to provide a consequence, we aren't acting in the interest of public safety.

I'm very conscious of the time, Madam Chair. I have fairly lengthy example of a young person and repetitive criminal acts. It comes from our Winnipeg Police Service.

The Chair: Time is not meant to limit you, it's meant to limit us. So just go ahead and say whatever you feel you have to say.

Ms Vodrey: Okay. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

If I could have a couple of moments, this came from the youth division of our Winnipeg Police Service, providing information about a young person. We believe this may be an example where that mechanism would have been very helpful. According to our police service, it is by no means an isolated case.

.1105

The youth turned 12 years old in 1993. But starting back in 1991, on a Sunday morning, a 79-year-old female was walking to church and her purse was snatched by the subject. He was caught sharing the proceeds with friends at a local store, and he freely admitted to the robbery. He was 10 years old at the time. Child welfare authorities were notified, and they advised the police service that they were going to be doing a follow-up.

In 1992 the subject was caught on the second floor of an office building trying to steal money from employees, from their purses and from their desks. A couple of days later, the subject was in toy store trying to steal some goods. When confronted, he tried to escape, breaking a store window.

Six days after that, the subject was caught in the administration office of our major hospital attempting to steal purses. When caught by a female staff member, he escaped by punching her in the face. He was apprehended a short time later by the security staff. He produced a Swiss army knife with a three-inch blade and threatened two security officers. He was eventually disarmed and subdued.

Less than a month after that, the subject and some of his friends approached an 18-year-old woman at a bus stop and demanded her purse. When she refused, the subject pulled out a knife and slashed at her. The purse came open and they stole her wallet.

A couple of months after that, the subject was on a bicycle when he approached a 61-year-old female and grabbed her purse from her left shoulder. I believe on the same day the subject then went into an office and stole a wallet from a desk. Not being content with the $20 in cash, he went to a bank machine and attempted to use the ATM card to withdraw more cash.

Shortly after that, again in the same year, the subject was on a bicycle and stole a purse from a 63-year-old female. Several days after that, the subject was caught shoplifting from a specialty boutique. Several days after that the subject grabbed a purse from a 70-year-old female, and he gained the distinction of being arrested for this offence by our chief of police.

Obviously being apprehended by the chief of police at that point didn't appear to have had an impact. A couple of days later, our subject assaulted and robbed a 14-year-old youth of gloves and baseball bat. He wasn't 12 years old yet.

Our subject's next contact was then just after his birthday, when he was caught for shoplifting and was finally able to be brought into the justice system, finally charged and detained at our Manitoba Youth Centre.

So we have an example of a young person offending repeatedly, supposedly involved in the child welfare system, without impact.

Mr. Gallaway: In their child welfare systems, most jurisdictions have some avenue or mechanism to remove the child and to put that child into circumstances so that they do not reoccur.

Certainly the child you've described is a very interesting anecdote, but at age 10, that's a child out of control. Obviously there's no parental involvement in that particular case, and one would wonder if there were any parents at all. At the same time, where are your child welfare authorities in all of this?

In other words, my question is, your child welfare legislation surely would allow you to remove that child from the home and put them into some sort of protective custody, but you're suggesting that we must do it by way of the Criminal Code, with its attendant cost, as opposed to doing it by child welfare legislation, which traditionally doesn't carry all that cost with it.

Ms Vodrey: I'm not able to give you on this case the particulars of removal from the home, but one would expect that our child welfare system in fact did what was available to them.

But the child, as you described, was an out-of-control child who the child welfare system was unable to deal with. What we are saying, then, is that we need to expand this menu of options, and in a case of a young person such as this, reoffending repetitiously within days, sometimes twice in one day, there must be the ability to bring that kind of a child into the justice system. There must be some way to get some kind of support also for the victim.

Mr. Gallaway: My question, then, is why would you want to criminalize an act, in this case, of a 10-year-old you referred to, when in fact you could simply perhaps beef up your Child and Family Services Act, which would not include the cost of the court? It's the same result. You're going to pay for it anyway.

.1110

Ms Vodrey: Our concern is that the child welfare system does not provide the accountability for criminal acts. It does not provide the recourse for the victims. We believe the Young Offenders Act is the federal legislation that deals with criminal activity of young people, and it's our view that this kind of young person should be brought into the justice system and made accountable for their actions through the justice system.

Mr. Gallaway: I have one final question, then. I'm trying to find the section in your presentation, but you talked about liability of parents. I think this is of great interest; it is to me as a member of this committee. In some way parental responsibility must be a factor in all of this.

You mentioned something that I found rather interesting, that you've asked Mr. Rock to enhance or increase the role of the parent in the Young Offenders Act. You've noted that nothing has happened. You've called it lack of action at the federal level, and you are going to table legislation that will make parents who have not made reasonable efforts to prevent their child from damaging property be liable for up to $5,000.

Once again, with due respect, you are invoking the civil law. Is that not correct? You could have done this two years ago.

Ms Vodrey: Yes, we are using our small claims court, and yes, we are using the civil law. The way our process works, our bill is currently before the House and it's in second reading now. It will go to committee for hearings, and this bill will be passed by our government by November 7.

Our position is that we began asking Minister Rock to bring parental responsibility back into the legislation. That has not been considered, to our knowledge, certainly in the first round.

Our government then said we will act within the areas of our ability. That is what we have done. However, we would like to see this paralleled within the Young Offenders Act.

Mr. Gallaway: But in fact we could not parallel your legislation in the Young Offenders Act. You are acting on your own initiative in your areas of constitutional competence.

Ms Vodrey: We believe in fact it should deal with criminal behaviour. We would like to see you use the model we have used. We have used a model that we have the capacity to bring forward, but we believe if you are interested in considering parental responsibility we then could have considered damages being awarded to those who have been victims of a criminal act, and we believe it is an important consideration. That's one part of the parental responsibility we're asking you to consider.

We would also ask you to consider the parental responsibility for the legal costs. Where parents are not eligible for legal aid, they in fact should pay the cost for their young person.

The Chair: Did you have one brief question?

Mr. Gallaway: Yes.

Very briefly then, in terms of this act, the up-to-$5,000, you're making the parallel that it should be in the YOA. Would you then suggest also that the same rule extend across the board, or are you going to treat young offenders differently than other offenders - in other words, make those over the age of 18 responsible in the Criminal Code?

.1115

Ms Vodrey: I understand now within the Criminal Code there can be this penalty against the accused, but in the Young Offenders Act we need parents to be responsible along with their young person. So what we are asking is that there now be a mechanism within the Young Offenders Act to bring those parents in and to provide for some restitution to victims.

The Chair: Minister, thank you very much, first of all, for coming to speak with us. We appreciate it. We are very sensitive to the fact this is clearly an area where federal and provincial jurisdictions overlap and where what we do is going to impact seriously, not just on your citizens and our citizens, but also on the bottom line in provinces. We know this.

At the risk of tossing down the gauntlet to some other provinces, I will say this to you. It is very impressive, whether people on this committee ultimately agree with you or not, to see you have brought so many officials with you and you've taken it so seriously. It has not simply been a political act, and we appreciate this. You've brought some light to these issues. We're not in a position to say today where we're going to come down on some of these issues, but I think you can see we've really concentrated them. We are in our fourth week of the tour and the issues are becoming very sharply defined for us, so it is helpful to have your input.

You mentioned a risk assessment tool you've developed. Not all the provinces are talking to us about lowering the age. But to our knowledge, we've never heard any other province that is talking to us about lowering the age mention they've done any of this king of work on it. If you're in a position to do so, we would greatly appreciate having access to this risk assessment tool.

Following up on what Mr. Gallaway was saying, there is one brief question I would like to ask. Our information is your child welfare legislation does not contain a section to allow you to intervene based strictly on the fact that a young person has committed an offence.

I can tell you - this is only my personal view - I see this as a problem, because whatever we do merges the systems. I think what Mr. Gallaway has said is very true. If we're going to do something to allow you to use the criminal justice system to reach down and grab this kid who is screwing up, then ultimately you're still going to have to have some kind of program for him. We're not going to put him in a federal penitentiary, nor would you want us to. There is another province that would, but I'm sure you wouldn't.

Having said this, it is probably going to involve some kind of merger of a social welfare approach and a justice approach. I'm wondering if you've given any thought to changing your child welfare act - I don't know if this is the right name - or the statute allowing you to take children into care to cope with this kind of a situation.

Ms Vodrey: Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

First of all, in the area of the risk assessment tool, we'd be happy to provide this to you.

The Chair: Thanks. We'd appreciate it.

Ms Vodrey: It is updated and quite helpful.

Our Child and Family Services Act is now undergoing a review by the Minister of Family Services. We're prepared to work with your committee on looking at mechanisms to deal with young people under 12, but we still retain the view that there must be an option within the Young Offenders Act to bring this young person into the justice system. Though we may work together - certainly within our government we do work together as departments with impacts on each other - I still maintain our position that we would like to see an mechanism in the Young Offenders Act. We would like to see a mechanism that comes from the Parliament of Canada, speaks with a very strong voice and provides a legislative framework for how young people are viewed, and what the consequences are for his or her actions where a child is under 12 and commits a criminal act.

Thank you very much.

The Chair: We will rise for a few moments while our next witnesses take their positions.

.1120

.1139

The Chair: We're back.

We have with us now, from the Learning Disabilities Association of Canada, Yude Henteleff, who's the executive director.

Welcome. I understand you have some introductory remarks. Then we'll have some questions for you.

Mr. Yude Henteleff (Executive Director, Learning Disabilities Association of Canada): I hope so. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

When I was asked by the Learning Disabilities Association of Canada to prepare this presentation, I thought I was pulling a mouse out of the hole by its tail and ended up with an elephant.

The Chair: Welcome to the club.

.1140

Mr. Henteleff: I have been involved in the field of learning disabilities, both as a parent of a child with LD and as a lawyer, for over 25 years.

When I was asked to make this presentation, I said ``Why? What's the use of it?'' When I look back over the years, there have been so many good committees and so many good groups that unfortunately have followed what appears to be a very interesting Canadian pattern. We've produced the best of reports and we inevitably put them on the shelf.

When Rosemary Vodrey, the Minister of Justice of Manitoba, mentioned a petition of some 7,400 people, I was reminded of a study done in 1969 called ``One Million Children''. It's a report by the Commission on Emotional and Learning Disorders in Children, commonly called the CELDIC report. They're very rare now. I have a copy. I'm going to lend it to you. I can't give it to you, because I treasure it for a number of reasons. It reminds me all the time of how much we've learned and how little we apply it. So she may represent 7,400 people. I'd like to think I'm here representing one million children.

A study was done by the Council for Exceptional Children back in 1971. It's called ``Standards for Educators of Exceptional Children in Canada''. I would like to read you their two quotes at the beginning of it.

This particular quote is from Georges Vanier, who of course you all know of.

It's a disgrace that books such as ``One Million Children'' and a study by the Senate of Canada, I believe it was in 1974 or 1975, called ``Standards of Determining the Causes for Criminal Behaviour in Children'' have all been largely ignored.

The other quote in this text is by Pierre Elliott Trudeau: ``Let us help every child live a rich and fulfilling life.'' A rich and fulfilling life is not accomplished by punishment for the sake of punishment or deterrence by confinement as a means of attempting to resolve what has been a problem for a long time for our young people in conflict with the law. All we heard from the Minister of Justice this morning was there's only one answer: lock them up; show them we mean business. That somehow would be the cure.

The fact is the Young Offenders Act, in its attempt to achieve a balance between protecting the public and providing service appropriate to young children, has been a profound failure.

Let me start with some statistics. As I proceed through the paper, you'll come to understand, I hope, that one of the least understood and least applied areas of concern has been the consequences of children who failed to learn, the consequences of school failure.

I don't know how many of you are familiar with the national study published in September 1993 by Human Resources and Labour Canada, called ``Leaving School''. It has the results of a national survey comparing school-leavers and high school graduates of 18 to 20 years of age. If you ever want to fully comprehend why so many of our children come into conflict with the law, you have to read this.

.1145

Let me talk for a moment about persons with learning disabilities, because after all, that's partly why I'm here. Some 10% to 15% of the population have learning disabilities. Five times this number are found amongst juvenile offenders, according to a very recent study out of Ontario. A very recent study by Corrections Canada shows that three times this number are found amongst adult offenders.

It is important to note that coming into conflict with the law is not intrinsic to these children; not at all. They don't have any inherent propensity to commit crime. That is not the nature of the difficulty. The nature of the difficulty is that they have extraordinarily difficult problems in receiving information through all the senses we ordinarily use. I'm not talking about their maybe not having twenty-twenty vision or perfect hearing but difficulties in receiving information, difficulties in processing that information, difficulties in analysing that information, difficulties in applying that information, and difficulties, for example, in remembering previous experience and applying it to current situations. They have difficulties in perceiving, in thinking, in remembering, and applying. It has nothing to do with intent; nothing to do with intent. It has everything to do with neurological dysfunction.

These are children who have this problem not from their own doing but because.... They are now satisfied from very recent genetic research that it's genetic. It may result in physical difficulties and so on.

I've mentioned the enormous number of studies. In the body of my report I refer to at least eleven major studies by our association alone since 1979. One of particular interest to you, which I'll leave with you, is in fact funded in part by the federal government, the Solicitor General of Canada, in part by the Samuel and Saidye Bronfman Foundation. It's called ``Learning Disabilities and the Young Offender: Arrest to Disposition''. We even developed workshops for juvenile court judges and probationary people all across the country. I did two of them. I did the workshops for all the personnel in Manitoba in 1988 and for all those in Saskatchewan in 1987 and 1989.

There has been a universal acknowledgement by persons in the juvenile justice system, particularly by juvenile court judges, that all the promises of the Young Offenders Act, which we were delighted with at the beginning, I can tell you, because we were not satisfied with the Juvenile Delinquents Act, because it failed to meet the special needs of young children appropriately.... Nevertheless, for the first time the phrase ``learning disabilities'' was mentioned. We said hurrah, they understand. They didn't understand, and they continue not to understand. If they did understand and there were an awareness, then you'd see programs in place.

What the minister said to you today about what's been happening in Manitoba, with all due respect, is like a very dim light in a sea of darkness. If you think anything substantial is happening in Manitoba to meet the needs of special-needs young children effectively, then she has led you astray. I can't put it any other way.

You see, when they talk about 75% of young persons being at risk and that therefore they become abhorrent children in some way, the statistic she isn't aware of, I assume - I can only think it is that - is a recent study, from 1996, in Ontario. I'll refer to it later. It showed yes, 75% of the children in our juvenile justice system are at risk because they are learning disabled, because they are autistic, because they are generalized disabilities. People used to use the word ``retarded''. I don't like that word. It's a pejorative kind of description. But 75% of all children in our juvenile justice system are dysfunctional children, coming from dysfunctional families, and in Manitoba they end up in a dysfunctional juvenile justice system.

.1150

I am appalled and frightened when, by way of answer, you're given an example of a young child who was in horrible trouble and from that generalized principles emerge that bear no relationship whatsoever to reality.

Dr. P.S. Koopman at the University of British Columbia said in a report that learning-disabled juveniles are more likely than other delinquents to be imprisoned. They also return to prison at alarming rates.

Dr. Koopman identified persons with learning disabilities as individuals with specific dysfunctions of a very basic development sort. Their language, cognition and ability to do appropriate thinking - in fact, their whole personality - have all been affected by their problems. And what this government says is ``lock them up earlier and earlier'', because they have 75% of them, a problem which is not of their making.

I'm not suggesting that dysfunctional families aren't something to be dealt with. Of course they are. I don't recall if they asked the question.... I think Mr. Gallaway talked about the child welfare act. Where were they? Why weren't all of the helping agencies that ought to be involved at an earlier time when the child was at risk, when this child was a pre-delinquent...where were they? Do you know where they were? They were climbing their own little pyramids and minding their own little businesses.

How handy to blame the person who's the least capable of defending themselves: the child. What rights does the child have? Children can't vote, Mr. Ramsay. They have no power, particularly a child who's dysfunctional and who for all sorts of reasons is the least capable of defending himself.

So what does society do? Justice Rosalie Abella put it very well. She asked why, when society appears to not know what to do, it uses the persons least able to defend themselves as the shock absorbers for society. Why do we find it so easy to blame them? I know why. Because they're the least capable of defending themselves. It's very easy.

People often wonder why, then, these children get into conflict with the law. Well, you see, they show a kaleidoscope of abilities. In some areas, because of the very nature of it, it's called specific learning disabilities. They may be brilliant in math but terrible in other things, and the people in authority who have to deal with them don't understand them. They say ``You're doing so well in math, why aren't you doing well in something else?''

I remember watching on closed circuit television a young person who had difficulty with what is called spatiality. She really couldn't relate herself to things around her. They put two chairs back to back and they asked her to walk through there. Pretty soon it was quite wide and she just walked through. They put them closer and as they put them closer she tried to compress herself thinner and thinner. She had no idea of her -

The Chair: Did she figure it out?

Mr. Henteleff: She couldn't understand herself in relationship to her body. She had no idea of herself below her waist. I'll tell you what this means in a moment so you'll understand its ramifications.

She finally couldn't squeeze herself thin enough to get between the two chairs. She threw the most horrific tantrum I've ever seen. Chairs were flying, everything was going. This child had an IQ of over 130. Her specific problem was spatiality. She didn't know up from down. She didn't know left from right. All these constants we take for granted. Just think of that child trying to do geometry or math or physics without having some idea of numbers and of space.

.1155

When they confront power or powerful people, they always do the wrong thing. Koopman says:

They're oddballs. They're never accepted by anybody. And sadly, they do come, because of that, in contact with children who for other reasons are in conflict with the law, who accept them.

It is clear that when you take these children and lock them up without the kind of assistance they need - and largely, they do not get it - they give up, they rebel, they try to achieve esteem in the only way they know how, in the only way they've been taught.

Read the recent text by Bernard Schissel - and I really recommend it to you - called Social Dimensions of Canadian Youth Justice, published in 1993. In assessing what happens to the 75% of children in our juvenile justice system who are there because their particular learning and other disabilities have never been appropriately diagnosed, or have never been diagnosed at all, that's what's really tragic. They did an examination of 3,700 people in the penitentiary system, and 37% were found to have learning disabilities that were never previously diagnosed or attended to. Just think of that. It's appalling.

What's interesting - if I can use that word - is that the most up-to-date evaluations of these persons with cognitive deficits and learning disabilities are being done in the adult penitentiary system. Nothing of this sort is being done at the juvenile justice system in Canada. It's appalling, but it gives you some kind of understanding that we are never initiating, we are always reacting.

Mr. Schissel says that our present juvenile justice system has begun to fall into the abyss of lock-'em-up justice, which doubly victimizes young offenders. Why does it doubly victimize? They are punished rather than helped. They're locked up, which is the worst thing you can do, and they're not helped.

I spoke earlier of the juvenile judges all across Canada. The program I spoke of, by the way, is not just in Manitoba and Saskatchewan. We did that program using this as a base - and I'll tell you about the video in a moment. Without exception they said they cannot help these children because there is nowhere to send them to for the kind of assistance they need, and the courts get them too late. Why aren't there the opportunities for dealing with them when they're at risk and when they're pre-delinquent? And even when they get there, the judges' hands are tied.

What we did was very interesting. As part of this program, we also developed a video. We used real people, a mother and a child - and the child had been disabled. We gave the judges the video, they watched it, and then we had them sit down separately in groups to decide what sentence they should give. Schissel identifies that. And of course none of them knew, because they wrote it out and then we shared it. The variations in the sentences were unbelievable. They were appalled at their own inconsistency and lack of rationality in how to deal with this child, largely based on the fact that they didn't have the understanding or knowledge.

.1200

That's pointed out in Schissel's book. There's something terribly wrong with a system of justice when it's so unaware that 75% of children who have come before it have this kind of problem.

Mr. Schissel makes it clear that the deterrent of punishment is becoming more commonplace in youth courts since the inception of the Young Offenders Act and that rehabilitation is being abandoned in favour of formal and restrictive procedures. Since the enactment of the YOA, courts in several provincial jurisdictions have been characterized by substantial increases in open- and closed-custody dispositions. He points out that it is ironic that this increasingly punitive system of youth justice, marked by a series of amendments in 1986 and 1989 to toughen the YOA, is still being criticized by crime control advocates and citizen lobbies as being too lenient with young offenders.

You've seen the statistics by Statistics Canada. They make it very clear that there has been no increase in crime. Unfortunately, with the YOA there's been no lessening in the incidence, but there has been no decrease at all in recidivism.

But listen to what has happened. In 1981, under the Juvenile Delinquents Act, training school commitment was 18%. Under the YOA it's 34%; a 100% increase in custody. Fines and restitutions as a form of sentence - and the judges have made it very clear they want to have the opportunity to do alternative dispositions but aren't able to under YOA...100% less of that kind of alternative means. Treatment orders, which used to be commonplace, are 400% less under the YOA as compared with the Juvenile Delinquents Act. Average sentencing under the Young Offenders Act is 100% more.

This is progress? This is achieving a balance between the rights of the child and protecting the community?

Mr. Schissel concluded, in comparing such actual disposition data under the JDA and the YOA, that it is generally concluded that the YOA represents a move away from care and treatment and towards punishment. In Ontario, for example, custodial dispositions during the first year of the YOA averaged 250 days, an increase of 115% over figures from the last year of the Juvenile Delinquents Act. Just imagine the enormous swing of the pendulum towards punishment. So much for the balance that was supposed to be achieved.

Ms Johnson, in her article in The Toronto Star in 1995, studied comparative rates of recidivism, for example, in the London family court. Many of you know the extraordinary work by Dr. Alan Leschied - quite extraordinary - and by Dr. Hoge and Dr. Andrews from Carleton. I'll come back to those later. Ms Johnson studied the comparison rates of recidivism for the London family court. It shows this. Special needs youth - always remember, 75% of children who come in contact with the law fall into that category - under the JDA showed a rate of 27.5%, whereas under the Young Offenders Act it showed an increase of 56%: a 100% increase. Out of non-special-needs youth, the percentage of reoffending youth was 20.5%; and under the Young Offenders Act it was 65%.

Leschied in 1989 examined the characteristics of young offenders referred to the London family court clinic. It was determined that many of the most serious types of young offenders do not function effectively in school. Problems with school attendance, social interaction, and overall achievement have typically been associated with youth who chronically violate societal expectations.

.1205

He went on to say that the negative or at best neutral impact of a policy of deterrence must be contrasted to the recent positive programs involving youth crime rehabilitation and treatment.

In his 1989 article Leschied points out that in continuing to encourage a deterrent-focused policy, the state is neglecting intervention, which is in not only the young person's best interest but the community's as well.

If we listen to what's happening in Manitoba, they have only one answer, an answer that time and time again has proven not to do anything except create children who inevitably will become more violent, act out more and come into our adult penitentiary system. The percentage of adult offenders who were in conflict with the law as children is 38%. Just think of that. Nearly 40% of all adult offenders had their beginnings in the juvenile justice system.

Coming back to my discussion about the frustration of the judges, with all due respect to the many caring people I've come across in Canada, the vast majority of those in our juvenile justice system have a vested interest - and let's be clear about this - in leaving the system unchanged. Why? They don't know how to do it; they don't know with whom to do it; they don't know when to do it; they don't know where to do it; they do not know how to cope with something they've never been trained in.

Leschied went on to say this:

In looking at all these major studies across Canada and the United States, one is struck by the similarity between what happened here in Canada and what happened in the United States.

In the United States they had a major study in 1977. They spent three years examining the correlation between children with learning difficulties - more than just learning disabilities; the whole range - and criminal behaviour.

As a result of that, in 1982 they began four projects in major cities across the United States to put into practice all the recommendations. Guess what their bible was? Do you know what the United States bible for action was? The CELDIC report. For two years I was chair of the commission in Manitoba for the implementation of the CELDIC report. We heard from all across the United States: ``What an extraordinary piece of work you've done''. They used it as their bible.

But what happened? In 1982 there were these major projects all across the United States, extraordinarily good projects, and then of course Mr. Reagan came into power. Every single project lost its funding.

We have exactly the parallel here. It's more recent, but there's a growing attitude that used to start with ``If you spare the rod, you spoil the child''. As if somehow beating a child psychologically and physically or locking them up will teach them a lesson. It teaches them only one lesson: ``We're not cared for; we're not important; we mean nothing. Well, we'll show them we mean something.''

Everything you see is a manifestation of our neglect, of society's failure to effectively meet the needs of children who cry for help. Somebody once asked me how I and people like me, such as Doreen Kronick in Ontario.... I could name a dozen people across the country who together in 1967 started the Learning Disabilities Association of Canada, which has now grown to 10,000 people with over 140 chapters all across this country.

Why are we still at it? Because every day in this child service system, there are children who are dying, who are being torn bit to bit. And I'm not over-exaggerating; we see them all the time.

.1210

The example that was given to you today is the example of what happens when we neglect a child. How we ought to change the provincial legislation is not to make those dysfunctional parents who receive no help responsible for their children's acts. We ought to make those persons who make policy and don't put it into place responsible for that child having come into conflict with the law.

You're perfectly right. Where was all the help for this dysfunctional family? Where were all the agencies that ought to have come together? Where were they? In all the places across Canada where they don't come together, where they're so busy looking after their own little empires they don't even know how to get together.

There are a couple of wonderful exceptions. One happens to be in Manitoba. It's called the MAP program, and it's in Brandon. It's not because of what this government has done...and I'm being apolitical. It's not only this government. Governments all across this country talk about boot camps, let's show them how, and all that kind of punishment-oriented approach, as if somehow that is going to work.

The MAP program has brought together every single agency in Brandon that is desperately concerned about at-risk youth. Each of these agencies has identified each of the at-risk children. Collectively, together with the parents as partners, together with all these agencies, including the Crown, as partners, they are trying to come together to meet effectively what is a desperate realization in the community that if they don't do it now, God help them. They've accepted their responsibility. They've acknowledged they were the ones at fault, not the ultimate results, which are the children.

When I looked at all these things I was appalled by the fact that such good things were happening in a few places across Canada but nobody knew about them. That's why the mouse became the elephant.

Somehow we're going to have to find a way, through this committee and through this book and through other means, of sharing, so that hopefully we will not be able to say, 25 years later - it's a quarter of a century since this book was produced - it was forgotten. Are we going to forget one million children again? Is that what this is all about? I hope to God not.

I know I get caught up. I promised myself I would try to be short. It's very difficult, because there's always so much to say.

Let me now move to the executive summary. I'll very briefly review it with you. I think it's important to review some of the findings that emerged from this material.

You'll forgive me, Mr. St-Laurent. I was not able to receive the material from Quebec in time. I happen to know some of the things that are happening in the juvenile justice system in Quebec are extraordinarily positive. All I was able to obtain in the limited time I had.... I don't say it with any sense of egoism, but the LDA has a very small staff and all the research had to be done by myself.

Some of the most extraordinary work is occurring in Ontario, absolutely extraordinary. It is not only the research they've done but the training sessions they're doing by what they call young offender trainers, spreading throughout the whole province, using the work of Professors Hoge and Andrews. I referred to this work earlier.

.1215

What's critical about what they've done is the at-risk surveys they've developed. They are absolutely superb. I'm delighted to tell you they've sent me the first three chapters of their new book. It will be published in November. It is probably the most advanced study, not just in Canada but in North America, of work in this field. After having had long discussions with Professor Hoge in particular, and having read the three chapters he was able to send me and all the work, I assume it is something your researchers will deal with in detail. It is the brighter light amidst the darkness, but it is still a very small light.

Let me go over this with you. The YOA was originally enacted to rectify the perceived imbalance between the rights of the individual - this is on page 2 - juvenile and the right of the public to live in safety. The purpose of the YOA was to reduce the crime rate among Canadian youth by rehabilitation, not by implementing stricter strategies. Yet despite its honourable intentions, deterrence through punishment is becoming more commonplace in youth courts since the inception of the YOA.

Up to 75% of young offenders have some sort learning disability. A learning disability is defined as a disorder that affects people's ability to either interpret what they see and hear or to link information, and I've gone over this with you.

Of particular importance is in 1991-92 males represented 80% to 95% of the cases, and the summary outlines the factors leading to this particular difficulty. You have the same ratio, by the way, when you go into the juvenile justice system. The vast majority are males.

There is no doubt that with appropriate rehabilitation in place delinquents can be helped, particularly those with learning disabilities. For example, studies demonstrate offenders who have completed the cognitive skills training in the community are readmitted at the rate of only 30.5%, a drop of close to 40% compared to others who did not complete such a program.

I'll close this part on this note. I've never been able to understand why the community is prepared to spend $100,000 to lock someone up when $40,000 would help them. There was an extraordinarily interesting study in New York State in the late 1980s and early 1990s. It showed a 12-year investment on persons with special needs provides a positive return to the community. They become self-supporting and provide an average of $75,000 in income tax during their productive lives. This is compared to a cost, if they are not helped, of anywhere between $500,000 and$1 million over their lifetime.

Let me conclude on this note. The proposed changes outlined in the proposed amendments to the Young Offenders Act and the backgrounder presented by the Department of Justice provide a classic case of the law and morality intersecting very little. For too many children who come into conflict with the law in Canada, and particularly for those with special needs, there appears to be little correlation between law and morality. In Canada, the scales of justice have always been tilted against young people in conflict with the law. What is now being proposed with these new amendments may very well have the children and youth already ill-served by the juvenile justice system slide off the scale entirely.

We have some general recommendations on pages 4 and 5 of the executive summary. I'll leave those to you for the moment, because I want to conclude by dealing with some of the very specific recommendations found on pages 6, 7 and 8 of the executive summary.

On transfers to adult court, the desire to treat more serious offenders by having them transferred to adult court impacts particularly on youths with learning disabilities, who in many instances have no idea what is going on. To have them in adult court, ostensibly to give them greater protection, is absolute nonsense. The likelihood of them receiving any kind of assistance in the penitentiary system is very dim indeed. The system isn't geared to deal with children, particularly those with learning disabilities. It is not even able to deal adequately with adults. How can you expect the adult penal system to develop the sensitivity to deal with children? In addition, of course, the consequences of putting children in a penitentiary system are horrendous.

On the suggestion about information sharing and records, again the emphasis is totally on public safety rather than on what is in the best interests of the individual. The sharing of records between the various helping professionals has a purpose and an intent. It is to make sure the young offender is being tested medically, physically, psychologically and educationally. This must be done in order to determine precisely the nature and extent of his or her medical, social, educational and psychological difficulties.

.1220

On declaration of principles, the proposed change would fundamentally alter the purpose and intent for which the YOA was ostensibly enacted in the first place. As previously stated, when the YOA was first enacted its purpose was balancing the safety of the public with the rehabilitation of young persons. This effective balance is totally out of kilter. It has not been achieved.

It is clear from the information previously presented in this brief that one of the most significant causes of children coming into conflict with the law is academic failure. This cause is also one of the least understood and the least attended to. The suggestion that there are a significant number of community-based alternatives to custody flies in the face of reality. This is abundantly clear from what we heard from the Minister of Justice this morning.

As to written waivers, it is suggested written waivers be obtained from children in respect to the disposition being contemplated. This course has extremely serious negative ramifications for children and youth with learning disabilities.

On publication of convictions, there is the assumption this will somehow have an impact on efforts to assure non-repetition of offences by the child. There is the further assumption that the dampening effect will be aided by parents who don't wish their names published. We are talking here about guilt by association. There is absolutely no research or evidence whatsoever that this works.

On lowering the age of minors who can be charged, I'll only tell you this. This is somewhat akin to what occurred in the Middle Ages. If you lowered them deep into scalding water, somehow maybe they would be cleansed. Is this the answer to these children's needs?

Thank you for being so patient and having me share these concerns with you. Sometimes we approach these hearings with some cynicism, wondering what difference it is going to really make, wondering if this is another travelling show and tell show. We hope to God not. For the sake of the children who need your intervention so desperately, achieve an effective balance. Don't misunderstand me. I've been a lawyer for many more years than I'd like to count. I understand the necessity for the protection of the public. But let's understand we are concerned about the protection of the public because we have failed the children who ultimately are the ones who act out and put the public at risk. Where do you want to put your money first?

Thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Henteleff.

We're going to start with Mr. St-Laurent.

[Translation]

Mr. St-Laurent: If possible, I would like to turn over to my colleague from the Reform Party while I get some portions of the brief translated so that I can discuss it better. I will come back later.

[English]

The Chair: Sure. You have seven minutes, Mr. Ramsay.

Mr. Ramsay: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I wish to thank you, sir, for coming and expressing yourself so strongly.

You refer to the presentation made by the Attorney General as saying lock them up, show them we mean business and this will solve the problem. I heard a lot more in the presentation than this. I heard they're developing youth justice committees involving members of the community to deal with children in difficulty, and that there is a recognition of this. I heard a number of other things I don't want to touch on because of the time limitation I have and because there is an area I really want to get into with you.

To be very frank with you, and with respect, I find some of your comments bordering on the extreme, particularly the last one, where you talked about dipping children into scalding water in order to cleanse them. I know the analogy, but there's always a danger in using analogies, and I don't know if this analogy will help the committee.

.1225

Yesterday, in an open custody institution in Alberta, we found many of the children there had the skills to succeed academically, but they needed the tutoring and they needed to get up to speed and they needed that special attention.

What I would like to touch on is the problem you identify - and it is certainly a problem - in the executive summary on page two, where you say:

You have not addressed the cause of that 75%. I'd like to touch on that because we do have some testimony before the committee that does address that. In fact, I found that submission so startling that I want to make sure the information that has been submitted to the committee is validated.

In that presentation, there was a very strong reference at the back of the submission. Basically it was an extensive research done into the causative factors of children being disorderly. They began from the premise that

Mr. Henteleff: Excuse me, Mr. Ramsay, which document are you referring to?

Mr. Ramsay: That was the presentation made to the committee by the National Foundation for Family Research and Education.

That brief - and I'm just skipping over it - goes on to say:

This is amazing to me, that children appear to be attached to their parents as a unit. I think the consequences of that in our society today are enormous, and that's why I want to validate this information.

I want to finish off here and then ask for your responses.

The finding is this:

They go on to say:

That is a significant factor.

I will conclude by touching on one other quote:

That is the first information I can recall the committee hearing that may deal with the causative factors of difficulties that children have.

What that research has indicated to me - and I certainly want to go over it before I draw any solid conclusions from it - is they're suggesting that one of the causes we must look at with regard to the concerns you've identified and have spoken about so strongly today may lie in the area of a social reality within Canada and not only in Canada, but other countries, where because of economic necessities, children are not bonding with their parents, because if it's true that if they are separated from their parents for 20 hours a week that there is a risk of non-secure bonding -

The Chair: Excuse me, Mr. Ramsay, you've 10 seconds left.

.1230

Mr. Ramsay: Thank you.

I'll end there. If you have any awareness of this study, I would sure ask that you submit your feelings and your opinions to this committee on what I've been able to tell.

Mr. Henteleff: Let me respond very briefly.

First of all, about what's happening in Manitoba, there was a non-secure custodial institution in Manitoba, and because of expressed concern by the public, this government recently spent half a million dollars to put a fence around it.

The rate of escape before the fence was put up was minimal - 0.5%. The moment they put the fence up, which you could climb - and they tested it - in about 4.5 seconds, the escape rate increased by about 500% or more. Why? Because it became a challenge.

It wasn't an effective means of dealing with the root problem and that was their prime answer to dealing with the needs of these children, the perceived safety of the public.

I would like to go back to your second point. You're absolutely right. Things have changed. The nuclear family, as we used to know it, has changed and there are a greater number of single-parent families. The vast majority of them are women. The vast majority of them live on the poverty line.

Winnipeg is the poverty capital of Canada in terms of children who are poor. What happens when you have children who are poor and when you have single parents trying to cope with not enough money and not enough assistance? You have dysfunctional families, and they do their very best.

You're perfectly right. We find ourselves in the position of having more and more families who aren't receiving the support they require. Coincidentally, with children who suffer learning disabilities and leave school, yes, in many instances, you do have dysfunctional families. You do have lack of bonding. There's no doubt that's a contributing factor. Poverty is; fetal alcohol syndrome is; all these things are contributing factors to children. So is poor pre-natal care, poor post-natal care, the result of which is mothers who ought not to be carrying children because of their age are carrying children, and that has an ultimate consequence on the child itself in due course.

You're perfectly right. But we must not lose sight of the fact that it is one of the factors, not the factor.

Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Maloney.

Mr. Maloney (Erie): I have a couple of points. I appreciate your presentation. It certainly was done with detail, and with some clarity, emotion and vigour.

On the issue of publication of convictions of young offenders, I don't necessarily disagree with what you're saying here, but how do we respond to the parent of young children who are living down the street from perhaps another young offender who has problems with sexual offences, offences of violence? How do we protect that family in those situations?

Mr. Henteleff: We protect the family by in fact involving them. That's what they do in Brandon. This isn't just a coming together only of the parents, but a coming together of the whole community.

Mr. Maloney: [Inaudible - Editor].

Mr. Henteleff: Oh, by the way, there are ways and means of testing children who are at risk. I don't have the time to share with you all the factors that parents and the school ought to become aware of when a child is at risk, to be able to deal with that child.

For example, one of the problems we've heard much about in the school system is bullying, and children who bully or children who are bullied. These are children who are immediately identified, and should be identified, as being at risk. There are all sorts of ways and means by which you then determine whether in fact that child and that child's family is at risk. All the helping agencies at that moment in time ought to be coming together to help that child. That includes the parents who are concerned about whether there's a child on the street or in the school who is doing things that are considered not to be acceptable.

Mr. Maloney: Could you elaborate on the Brandon experience? I'd like to know more about that.

Mr. Henteleff: Yes, I'd like to.

.1235

Mr. Maloney: How long has the Brandon experiment been going?

Mr. Henteleff: A year and a half.

I have a section on early identification''. It's found at page 75 of the appendix.

It was begun in 1995, so it's something that's very current in Brandon. As noted in the material, one of the most challenging problems facing community agencies and organizations is finding effective ways to respond to programs for the small number of high-risk youth in our midst.

Note that often the agencies dealing with these youth do so in isolation from each other. These frustrations led to a concerted effort in Brandon towards community and coordination. If you look at the goals, coordination of interagency treatment for high-risk youth, utilization of community and family support, prevention of further involvement in problem behaviour, consistent and timely enforcement of court orders and safety.... You'll notice they developed a database to track the highest-risk youth in Brandon. They focus...and they could have these resources only for the forty highest-risk youth. Then there may be risks for dropping out of school, mental disorder, delinquency, drug use, and later behaviours.

Of interest, if you go over to the next page, there was an assessment tool...and in due course if the committee requests it I will provide some of the material I didn't attach as schedules because there wasn't time to provide you with all the tools they utilized, so your research people will have that. You'll notice, Mr. Maloney, starting on page 76, we need to share information so we all have the full picture of these youth. Our efforts must be coordinated so we're working in the same direction, not at cross-purposes, to produce positive outcomes. We must set clear limits for youth, not necessarily placing them in custody but setting consequences consistent with their actions. Although we are a safe community, that is not always the perception of the public. Our communities are demanding and deserve to be safe.

This is the approach.

Mr. Maloney: Do we have any statistics? It has been going only for a short period. How effective has it been?

Mr. Henteleff: Unbelievable.

Mr. Maloney: Unbelievable.

Mr. Henteleff: That's what's so surprising to them. They never thought it would be so effective so fast, in dealing with these children.

There is another program, if you'll turn to page 81.... This is in Redmond, Washington. This program dealt specifically with a learning disability population. You'll see there the very same kind of intake, optional testing, and, what's very interesting, a 14-week, 28-hour instructional class geared specifically to the needs of these clients.

I'll give you another example you'll find in the material. They did a test of 1,800 persons in the penitentiary system who had cognitive deficits - not learning disabilities, as I've spoken of, but cognitive deficits. Not only did they do the program in prison, but as a condition of their leaving prison they had to take this course. They found it was enormously successful when there's a transition into the community. The recidivist rate was reduced by an extraordinary percentage.

What was really interesting was there were different subsets of offenders. The subset of offenders where there was the greatest drop of recidivism, for those who had cognitive deficits, was those who were there for sexual deviance offences. I have a copy of the study. Extraordinary. It startled them enormously how effective these were with a population very little else was effective with in terms of reducing the rates of recidivism.

I wish I could say I had more than two examples to provide you. These are the only two I've been able to get from research about what has really been effective in early identification of high-risk children. That's in response to your question.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Gallaway): Unfortunately, Mr. Henteleff, our time is up.

.1240

[Translation]

Mr. St-Laurent: It's refreshing to hear from you this morning, Mr. Henteleff. You must be reassured by the comments of the minister, who spoke before you. We know that things are going smoothly with respect to young offenders in Manitoba. The minister also said that things would go even better because of the bigger and bigger teeth that she plans to put into her legislation. You know what I think about that; obviously I'm being sarcastic.

Can you tell us from your experience and the brief you just presented whether young offenders in Manitoba have proper, effective follow-up programs at the moment?

[English]

Mr. Henteleff: With the rare exception, no.

[Translation]

Mr. St-Laurent: Thank you. Your first recommendation, which I had translated and explained to me, deals with the early identification of young offenders and faster intervention to avoid the problems that occur with time. At what stage would you intervene? Are you talking about kindergarten, primary school, or are you just saying that we should wait until young people rob a corner store or commit some other crime?

[English]

Mr. Henteleff: It should be done as early as possible. There are very many studies now - they're referred to in this paper - that show it's relatively easy to determine when a child is at risk.

One has to understand the consequences of a child failing at what everybody else seems to be doing very well. It takes very little for children to feel different, unusual, stupid, ignorant - that they are not achieving. For them to be able to accomplish what their peers do is the most important thing in the world. They know very quickly and realize very quickly that they're different.

Rather than dealing with that difference in a productive, warm and loving fashion, we far too often apply what I call the cost-benefit approach to meeting the needs of these children. In other words, the system says if we're not going to get out of them what they want us to invest in them, it isn't worth while for us to invest in these children. That's the cost-benefit approach. The bottom line is not what's in the best interest of the child; the bottom line is the bottom line: are we going to make enough bucks out of this child. I'm quite serious about this.

There's a really deep concern that we are following a pattern that has emerged in the United States. The state of California is now spending more on its penal system than on its education system. Just think of that.

When you read in the paper an evaluation of the Dade County of Florida's review of its juvenile justice system it makes you want to weep. Do you know why? Yes, you feel sorry for the children there, but what you begin to see are the manifestations of that here. That's what's so frightening.

We're developing this system where we're investing in those who we say are worth while, and not investing in those who we say aren't. As Rosalie Abella said, not only are they becoming the shock absorbers for society, they're becoming the disposables of society.

We're becoming willing participants in creating that kind of a class system. Society will increasingly be at peril, because how many people can you lock up? Our rates of incarceration of western civilized nations is second in the world to the United States. Is that what we want to happen in Canada? Is that our future? Is our future to spend more and more on prisons and less and less on education? How utterly preposterous.

.1245

What worries me very much is the ethical and moral attitude that has developed along with fear, which is spread by generalizing rare examples of children and making them into broad political statements. That's what I'm fearful about - when there's no justification for it. When you read the statistics, there's no justification for it. But if we're not careful, by virtue of our inappropriate reaction to this problem, we will put society more and more at risk.

[Translation]

Mr. St-Laurent: Your figures show that 75% of young offenders have learning difficulties. Do you have figures on a percentage of young offenders who are aboriginal people in Manitoba? This type of information does not seem to appear in any of the documentation. Apparently the percentage is very high.

[English]

Mr. Henteleff: In our penitentiary system - and please forgive me, because I don't recall the precise figures - well over 50% of our penitentiary population is aboriginal peoples.

Mr. Schissel did a study that I really commend to you because it's a superb piece of work. It identifies problems related to people of a particular culture and background. You have to remember that in terms of health, pre-natal and post-natal care, fetal alcohol syndrome, and all the manifestations of a particular segment of our population who have been treated in the most horrific and horrendous fashion, we are now bearing that very bitter fruit. We have to take responsibility for it, and we're not doing so.

We're beginning to take responsibility in some ways in Manitoba, thank goodness, not because of what governments are doing but because the native people themselves realize that their ultimate redemption is in their hands, so a parallel system of justice is being developed. They have the cultural capacity to be nurturing and caring. We did our very best to destroy it and came very close to destroying it. I'm always amazed at their resiliency and strength. So their redemption and their future isn't in our hands. Thank God it's in their hands, because all we have done is fail them horribly in every way you can think of. The answer lies with them, but they have their priorities too. They have priorities of housing and sanitation - the most basic health and educational concerns.

I know of no other people who have a history of such deeply caring feelings toward children and community, which we nearly destroyed. We tore the heart out of who they are, and they're now putting their own heart together. They're going to give us a good example of what to do.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Gallaway): Thank you, Mr. Henteleff. I'm sorry, Mr. St-Laurent, but....

Mr. Henteleff: Merci beaucoup for your very good questions.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Gallaway): The time has expired, unfortunately, for your presence here. We thank you for coming. It is much appreciated. Thank you very much, Mr. Henteleff.

With the committee's indulgence, we will not break, because we're running against a severe timeline. So I will ask the representatives of the Interfaith Committee on Youth Justice to come to the witness area and we will start immediately.

.1250

Welcome. Thank you for coming here this morning. We have with us the Interfaith Committee on Youth Justice. Their members are Thomas Novak, Margot Lavoie, Rudy Friesen and Barbara Shoomski.

Ms Margot Lavoie (Interfaith Committee on Youth Justice): Rudy Friesen had to leave because of a change in schedule, but Mr. Jack George from the United Church is here.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Gallaway): Welcome.

As is our practice, and as I believe you have observed, we will ask you to make your presentation, which will then be followed by questions. Please proceed.

The Reverend Thomas Novak (Interfaith Committee on Youth Justice): In order to speed things up, for our revised presentation we'll read what's in the large print.

[Translation]

We could answer Mr. St-Laurent's question in French.

[English]

Barely was the ink dry on the original Young Offenders Act when calls began for its reform through increased penalties, extension of its jurisdiction to younger children, and the transfer of older children to adult court. The Young Offenders Act has been declared a failure because, despite statistics that show that the rate of youth crime is actually decreasing, the public perception is that youth crime is on the increase.

We believe that underneath the endlessly debated questions of ages and sentences there are two other more fundamental questions. Are the Canadian public and Parliament not placing dangerously high expectations on this one piece of legislation? Is it realistic to expect that courts and jails alone can address the profound problems and pressures that afflict a growing number of Canadian young people?

Have you been to Rossbrook House or is that one of the places you're visiting as one of the alternatives?

The Acting Chair (Mr. Gallaway): I'm sorry. I couldn't hear you.

Rev. Novak: Are you going to Rossbrook House here in Winnipeg as one of the...? No? Okay. Rossbrook House is a very innovative, all-night drop-in centre for children and teenagers in one of the poorest areas not just of Winnipeg, but of Canada.

Sister Leslie Sacouman, the director, in a recent interview in the Winnipeg Free Press, observed:

The area in question has an unemployment rate of 35%. It is currently troubled by the activity of competing youth gangs and an increasing level of teenage violence.

Sister Sacouman confesses that at first she was incensed and irate, but she says:

Sister Sacouman recognizes that for many young people coming from overwhelmingly difficult family situations, the gang acts as a surrogate family. Indeed, one of Winnipeg's largest street gangs was originally founded as a way for the teenagers in one extended family to look after the needs of their little brothers, sisters and cousins.

.1255

We fail to comprehend how the further brutalization of such broken and hurting young people, by sending them to jail with adult offenders, by increasing their sentences in youth jails or in the rigorous confinement and austere conditions of boot camps, will address the real problems that are at the root of much youth crime and violence.

Canada does not need bigger and tougher jails. What is desperately needed, however, are the following measures: first, the establishment of a comprehensive system of education, employment opportunities, recreation, social services, and other supports for young people and families to give Canadian young people alternatives to a lifestyle of violence and crime; second, an overhaul of the justice system to make it meaningful for both offending young people and the victims of their actions; third, the development of positive alternatives to the present system of youth jails, which would promote the rehabilitation of young offenders, as well as the healing of their victims and of the wider community.

In a recent interview on CBC's Morningside, Dr. Fraser Mustard of the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research explained what psychologists call ``the latency effect'', which we've just heard about for an hour. That effect refers to how a child's experiences in the early stages of his or her life will have significant effects later on. Have you heard already about this study from Michigan, or is this news that I should I go on to talk to you about?

An hon. member: Sure, please do.

Rev. Novak: Dr. Mustard described the study, which began about thirty years ago in Michigan. Three-year-old children were selected from neighbourhoods in which there was poverty and poor parenting. At random, some were placed in an intervention group, and an equal number were placed in a non-intervention group. For the next three years, the children in the intervention group worked five days a week with an adult, and their parents were given help in parenting skills. The children and families in the non-intervention group were left to their own devices. When the children reached twenty and thirty years of age, assessments were done. It was found that in the intervention group, high school completion was one-third higher, the rate of teenage pregnancies was 40% lower, and the mental health problems were considerably fewer. The level of crime and delinquency and the rate of unemployment was also significantly lower.

It was estimated that for every dollar that was invested in the initial three-year intervention, the return to society was seven dollars. This was due in part to their contribution to the economy through their success in finding and maintaining employment, and it was always due to savings related to the costs of crime, imprisonment and the demand for mental health workers.

It is argued that Canada is in so desperate a financial crisis that massive reductions must be made in social programs in order not to pass on an intolerable financial situation to the next generation. In the name of economic restructuring and fiscal responsibility, more and more families are therefore being plunged into unemployment and poverty, and educational opportunities are being eliminated and social services ravaged. In Manitoba, this means that upwardly spiralling tuition fees and the elimination of bursaries are making university education - and even community college - beyond the reach of young people who come from lower-income families. Programs that had helped those who had dropped out of the education system get back in have been eliminated or severely cut back. Community agencies that have endeavoured to provide positive alternatives for street kids and inner-city teenagers have been ravaged by government underfunding.

Meanwhile, due to insufficient funding for child and family services, the agencies themselves have had to admit that children over the age of 13 who leave home to escape family problems are essentially left to their own devices. There is just no money for the agencies to place them in foster homes. As the authors of the aboriginal justice inquiry report pointed out in 1991 - and I hope you know this document - clients of the child welfare system frequently become clients of the justice system. The reasons for their appearance in one system are often the same as for their being apprehended by the other.

.1300

We share the fear of many others who work with low-income families that the Government of Canada's $7 billion reduction in transfers for education and social programs is hitting hardest at precisely those segments of the population that are most vulnerable and whose children are most at risk to end up on the street, in court or in jail.

Yet, as the study described by Dr. Mustard demonstrates, every dollar that is removed from social programs that could help children grow into healthy adults will result in seven more dollars being spent down the road.

No amount of tinkering with the Young Offenders Act will make the slightest dent in the statistics for youth crime as long as a concerted effort is not made to address the needs of a generation of children who are increasingly plagued by poverty and its effects. This effort needs to involve all levels of government as well as businesses and community organizations.

As was demonstrated by the Michigan study, it is not the fear of tougher jails and longer sentences that keeps children out of crime. Rather it is the sustained and loving involvement of at least one caring adult.

Many successful programs are emerging that are based on this very principle. In the 1970s, for example, in a poverty-stricken neighbourhood of Washington, D.C., a man called Kent Amos was concerned that his children would be negatively affected by other children in the neighbourhood who did not have the same opportunities and parental support. He was a fairly wealthy businessman.

He and his wife realized they had two options: they could flee the neighbourhood or they could make a difference in the lives of the very children they feared. So they decided to open their house to the children of the neighbourhood. They invited them to come in to play, to study and to simply feel safe and loved. Due to the efforts of these two people, many children in that neighbourhood broke the cycle of poverty and crime and went on to higher education and successful professions.

This approach grew into a continent-wide movement called the Urban Family Institute. The goal of the movement is to create nurturing villages where there is a seamless web of care around our children.

The method is to involve as many schools, agencies, churches and individuals as possible in a particular neighbourhood in the creation of what they call ``corridors of care''. In a corridor of care, there would always be somewhere a lonely child could go for contact with a caring adult.

These American programs have some home-grown counterparts in our country. When the Andrews Street Family Centre in Winnipeg's north end surveyed 700 homes in their neighbourhood about what kinds of services were needed, nearly 400 people signed up to help out as volunteers. This is one of the poorest neighbourhoods in Canada.

At William Whyte School, a few blocks to the east, parents go along to school with their children. While the children study reading and science, their parents help out in the classroom or work at their own correspondence courses in things such as literacy training. The school has also emphasized home visits and the creation of support networks.

Since these and other innovations were begun three years ago, referrals from the school to Child and Family Services have dropped 75%.

Until Canadian society determines that no resources will be spared to assure that no child who does not want to be alone should ever have to be, youth crime and violence will continue to spiral out of control and there will be more and louder cries for further amendments of the Young Offenders Act.

Why is it that, despite the fact that almost all the evidence shows that longer and tougher sentences do nothing to reduce the rate of youth crime, members of Parliament continue to receive thousands of letters and phone calls demanding precisely tougher and longer sentences? Why does this vengeful attitude not only persist but even seem to be getting stronger?

We believe the desire to hurt back when one has been injured is a primal human reaction. The threat of vengeance is the most primitive way of deterring someone else from harming someone in my tribe, my family or even me. But in order for people to live together in peace, every society has to put limits on the use of vengeance. Witness the Hebrew scriptures, where the sacred authors insisted that in taking vengeance the children of Israel exact no more than an eye for an eye, no more than one tooth for one tooth.

.1305

Still, long before the time of Jesus, Hebrew thinking had come to the realization that a healthy society cannot be built on the principle of revenge. For long-term health and good relations among its members, far more effective are the principles of reconciliation and healing.

When an offence has been committed, we may perceive it in several different ways. We might see it as a problem in itself, for which blame needs to be assigned and punishment provided, as in our present adversarial system. Or the offence may be perceived as a tell-tale symptom of an underlying disorder, such as serious personal, family, or social programs. The offence becomes an opportunity to expose and heal those deeper wounds. This is the approach that is called variously ``restorative'' or ``transformative'' justice.

One highly promising variation of this approach is victim-offender mediation.... Are you going to Mediation Services?

The Acting Chair (Mr. Gallaway): No. In Manitoba?

Rev. Novak: In Manitoba, here in Winnipeg. Winnipeg is privileged to be the home of what I think is North America's most highly developed mediation program, run by an organization called Mediation Services.

In traditional courts neither the victim nor the offender experiences justice in a way that leads to healing. Both sit in silence and watch passively as lawyers negotiate and strategize. For many young offenders, the victim is a faceless abstraction. A face-to-face encounter is often the best way to help the offender realize his or her actions really do have painful consequences, and this experience is emotionally far tougher than a term in a detention centre.

Victim-offender mediation also provides a valuable opportunity for the healing of the victim. The victim has a chance to express the pain and anguish the offender's actions have caused. Just as importantly, he or she has a chance to hear directly from the offender the circumstances of the offence. Finding out the reasons why he or she was victimized is a key element of the victim's grieving and healing process and is crucial in helping alleviate the fear of being re-victimized. In mediation offenders are invited to take responsibility for their action by making restitution, by performing community service, by obtaining counselling, or by a combination of all three.

Janet Schmidt, of Winnipeg Mediation Services, reports that 90% of such agreements are honoured. This compares with a 50% compliance rate for traditional court orders.

Japan has the distinction of being the only industrialized country in recent years to have actually reduced its rate of crime in almost all categories. The Japanese model, which has been developing for forty years, follows a pattern similar to victim-offender mediation. Acknowledgement of guilt, expression of remorse, and direct negotiation with the victim for restitution and pardon are preconditions for lenient treatment. Prisons are used sparingly, to secure the safety of the community over the short term. The more lenient has been the treatment of the offender and the higher the involvement of the community, the lower has been the rate of recidivism.

When an offence has been committed, not only are the victim and the offender in need of healing but the family and the community and their delicate network of relationships have also been damaged and need healing. Conversely, the family and the community can often play a critical part in the healing of both the offender and the victim. This is the principle behind the sentencing circle or the family conference, as you're probably well aware. You're aware of the New Zealand experience of family conferences, I imagine, so I'll skip over that.

Sentencing circles, in the form of youth justice committees, have been in use in Manitoba for several years now. Their use is growing both on reserves and even in the city of Winnipeg.

.1310

St. Theresa Point, an aboriginal community 450 kilometres northeast of Winnipeg, was a pioneer in the development of youth justice circles. At St. Theresa, the crown refers practically all young offenders to the community, and the community's youth justice circle is provided by a non-professional magistrate chosen by the community from among their numbers. Though suffering from a distressingly high rate of unemployment and many other problems that plague isolated reserves, St. Theresa Point is now known as a community that is virtually free of serious youth crime and violence.

We want to say to the minister, the undersigned, as I mentioned earlier, that the youth justice courts in Manitoba.... However, we'd like to point out that until two years ago the youth justice circles in Manitoba received support from the Department of Justice, and they received training. Since that ended two years ago, the Department of Justice has simply been sending a probation officer to work with the youth justice circle, but he isn't really interested in being there because he is already so overworked. So in this way, the value of the youth justice circle's work is being devalued.

Since we have five principles of medicare nationally, we think it might be important that we develop some principles for the youth justice system. For the provisions that are already in the act, such as youth justice circles, there should be some teeth put in so that provinces are not just free to ignore the provisions that are already in the act. Instead of blaming the act for not working, we think we should maybe try to make the act work; I don't think it's ever been totally implemented.

We also want to point out that the aboriginal justice inquiry - are you familiar with this document? - has pointed out sentencing circles as an appropriate means of treating not only young people, but adult offenders. It's to our great dismay that neither the provincial or federal governments have really acted on all but a very small percentage of the recommendations. We would really encourage you to speak to the Minister of Justice. Ask him to dust off his copy and to implement some of the many recommendations in this document.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Gallaway): If I might, Mr. Novak, you realize that we're operating on a timeline. I don't want to in any way cut you off in making your presentation, but I just want to point out that you've been talking for about twenty minutes. You may limit the amount of time for questions, and I know you've brought other people here.

Rev. Novak: Okay, I'll try to sum up what we have in the next five minutes.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Gallaway): Great.

Rev. Novak: First of all, we want to point out paragraph 45: ``The rate of recidivism actually increases with the severity of the penalty.'' You're probably aware of that statistic. You're probably also aware of what's in paragraph 46, that it costs up to $200 per day to keep a young person locked up in custody.

We have a healing centre here in Winnipeg for which the federal government just gave millions of dollars to build, but it's empty because there's no money to send young offenders there. There is a program for young males, but they have just cut their program from twenty beds to ten because they can't find the funding from Indian Affairs and Northern Development Canada, Health Canada or the province - and that's funding that is needed to send young offenders with solvent and other problems for treatment.

On the next page are comments about the attitudes of society. Like our previous speaker, I wanted to talk a little bit about this issue. I think this is a theological problem. At the bottom, with number 49, in our society we believe evil has to be beaten out of children through punishment - as the previous speaker said, spare the rod and spoil the child. Churches in the past have taught that inflicting pain on children was somehow necessary for their salvation, that what we call ``crime'' is an evil, and that what we need to do in our traditional justice system is find the guilt and name the guilt, and then the evil must be atoned for or exorcised through punishment by inflicting pain on the guilty parties.

Rather than the adversarial system of justice that spends all of its energy finding how to inflict pain, we would recommend the non-western model of considering crime in a sickness model, where crime is a symptom of a deep wound.

On page 10, for those already turned to violence and criminal activity we need to devise programs that address the real needs of young people: counselling, recreation programs, treatment.

.1315

In paragraph 54 we react in horror to the possibility of more young children being raised to adult court and serving their sentences in standard prisons with adult offenders. The possibility of further brutalization of already wounded young children is alarming.

In paragraph 55, we encourage the Minister of Justice to consider reinstating a youthful provision that was available under the old Juvenile Delinquency Act, whereby judges could divert offenders out of the court system to the child welfare system. There the offence could be treated as a family problem. Such a provision could also serve to further facilitate the diversion of young offenders and their families to treatment centres and community-based alternatives, such as mediation and healing circles.

Are you going to Agassiz at Portage La Prairie?

The Acting Chair (Mr. Gallaway): No.

Rev. Novak: Okay. We recommend that you study that program. It's an internationally recognized positive peer culture program, which is presently under attack by our Minister of Justice, but has been internationally recognized as being very effective for dealing with young offenders.

In paragraph 57, we urge the government to review policies which limit the contact that incarcerated children have with their families. Children who come down to be incarcerated in places like the Agassiz Youth Centre...it's almost impossible for their families to visit them, so they become ``out of the loop''. Rather than the families becoming part of the treatment of the young person, they're pushed aside. Children to families who have no idea of what their children have experienced in incarceration.

In paragraph 59, we note that it has been proposed that children under the age of 12 be brought under the Young Offenders Act. We cannot understand how stigmatizing children under 12 as criminals will ever really help to do anything but apprentice them as criminals. In other words, it will send them to schools of crime. We believe that what we call criminal behaviour in younger children is essentially a family problem that requires attention to the home situation.

To conclude, I will also mention that there have been some proposals in Manitoba for wilderness camps. There have been proposals sitting on the desks of Manitoba's justice minister and the federal justice minister - maybe - for up to ten years that have simply been ignored. We'd like to know why they've been ignored. There are always excuses, but we really believe that the will isn't there to investigate alternative programs for aboriginal people.

In paragraph 64, we note that it is remarkable that even the RCMP have begun adapting their police work to the principle of prevention. In Thompson, the detachment has recently decided to assign one of its members working on the isolated Shammatawa Reserve to the task of full-time recreation director. Are you familiar with this?

This far-sighted decision has been founded on the experience of a successful program of northern fly-in sports camps, whereby students from physical education programs are given summer postings to help with recreation in isolated communities. And during that time the rate of youth crime has fallen significantly. Even the RCMP is realizing that it's wasting time chasing after offenders all of the time and realizing that even the RCMP needs to be working in prevention.

Too often we have seen young people return home from a place of detention or treatment determined to put aside the behaviour that led to their arrest, only to be worn down by the hopelessness of a home situation that gave birth to the offending behaviour in the first place. We have very little hope that the most enlightened institutional treatment programs will ever have much positive effect on the lives of young people that they graduate as long as loving and caring structures of support are not put in place for their neighbourhoods and families of origin, and as long as the transformation that may occur in the young offenders is not accompanied by a parallel transformation in the families and in the community.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Gallaway): Thank you, Mr. Novak.

We will begin with Mr. St-Laurent.

[Translation]

Mr. St-Laurent: Thank you. First of all, I would like to thank you for your very interesting brief. I have only one question, which should not take up much time.

.1320

Normally, we have a whole list of questions for our witnesses. Your comments discuss my particular concerns, so I have only one question to ask you.

I didn't hear you talk about publishing young offenders' names. In the context of your work and the approach you plan to take, do you sincerely think that publishing the names of young offenders who represent a danger to their community or to neighbouring communities could have any deterrent effect whatsoever? Or do you not think that it might rather enhance a young offender's reputation with his peers? I would like to hear what you have to say about this.

Rev. Novak: Our experience here in Winnipeg has shown that in gangs, publication of a crime is a type of initiation. Mention of the crime in newspapers or on news reports gives the young person prestige within the gang. We think that publishing names would just be a way of encouraging young people to take more and more dramatic action in order to gain prestige with their gang. For them, the gang is their family and enjoying prestige within the gang is important. If young people cannot get support or interest from their parents, they look for this within the gang.

We share your fear that publishing the names of young offenders might have the opposite result of that intended

Ms Lavoie: I would like to add that not all young offenders necessarily come from families that neglected their child. Many parents, myself included, did everything they could for their child. They tried to find help, but the help was so minimal, that the parent was left to cope alone. Publishing the names would only further humiliate families that tried to help their children.

Mr. St-Laurent: Thank you very much, that will be all.

[English]

The Acting Chair (Mr. Gallaway): Mr. Ramsay.

Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to thank our panel for appearing before us and giving us the information that has been provided.

When we speak of the release of names, I've never heard anyone seeking this change from the viewpoint of creating a deterrent. They have sought it from the viewpoint of providing information to families to protect their children from getting involved.

In fact this question was brought up in connection with closed-custody facilities with young offenders. Yesterday, or maybe it was the day before, one individual pointed out that if a sex offender is released into society, the public should be made aware of it. It's not going to help the rehabilitative effort of that individual, but it is going to provide society with information people might be able to use to protect their children.

You can extend that into drug trafficking and so on. At least parents would have information to do what they could to keep their children from getting involved with that element, which would draw them into criminal activity. That's really the basis I've heard for it. It's not a wish to stigmatize or reduce the possibility of rehabilitation on the part of the offender.

.1325

But whenever we speak of taking a right away from the offender, of course we speak of granting that right to society, in the interest of safety. When we speak of granting greater rights to the offender, of course it means we're taking rights away from society in order to protect itself. What we need to do as legislators, is to balance that. We need to find a reasonable balance.

I haven't found anyone, including in your testimony here today, who strikes that balance. You're simply saying you'll have no deterrent effect. You're right, as far as I'm concerned. You're right, but you're not looking at the other side of it.

I wish that we could strike that balance. Basically, we're looking to bring forward the greatest balance between the two needs: rehabilitate the offender and at the same time protect society.

I have a list I read from earlier of young offenders who are now in closed custody in Alberta. There's murder, murder, murder, murder, hostage-taking, manslaughter, murder, murder. These are very serious things.

It's easy to come here. We're also in that position in Ottawa as an opposition. We can criticize cabinet ministers who are honestly and sincerely trying to find answers to the problems besetting their department. We can criticize that, but it doesn't do any good if we play that role. So what we're trying to do is find a balance that will work.

I want to touch on this whole area of early detection and prevention. To me, that's the answer. We must go deeper than where we've gone this morning. We must address what this brief from the National Foundation for Family Research and Education has pointed us toward: is there something we can do to reduce the number of young children who are growing up without the security bond that ought to normally and naturally form between parents and children.

I was born into poverty. I was born in a log house with a sod roof. I have a picture of that sitting on my fridge. I was born into poverty. Dad had a strap on the wall. That was the justice system in our house. He used it when we violated the law, his law, the rules, in order to keep order within the home. It did not adversely affect my sense of justice at all.

As the presenter of this document from the National Foundation of Family Research and Education points out so clearly, if that secure bonding occurs, the high percentage of cases shows that it doesn't matter whether you're in a poverty or near-poverty situation.

From my own experience, I know that to be true. We were in a poverty situation, but I had the love and care of my parents. When my dad took that strap off the wall and used it on me, he was showing his love and concern for me. I knew that. It wasn't abuse. I don't subscribe to abuse.

I don't have a strap hanging in my home. We have four children. I approach them differently. Fortunately, we've had children who didn't have any behavioural difficulties that we weren't able to handle.

So I guess I don't have a question for you other than this. Consider this information here that deals with the possibility of a failure in the bonding. In other words, what they're saying is that if a child in its first five years is separated from its parents for more than 20 hours a week, there is a risk to the secure bonding that is necessary. When that occurs, there is a risk that there isn't the proper development, emotionally and otherwise, of that child.

If that is accurate, I shudder because of the consequences it indicates for our society. We will be spending more money, possibly at the front end, for early detection and prevention. We'll be spending more and more money.

To me, that's not the answer. It's the answer in lots of areas, but we want to get at the cause of why the children are developing in the way they are. The only information we've received so far is from this presentation to which I've referred.

.1330

Do you have any information about the bonding? Do you have any information contained within this brief? If you have any comments on that, I would appreciate it.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Gallaway): Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. Would anyone would care to comment?

Ms Barbara Shoomski (Interfaith Committee on Youth Justice): I'm a spiritual caregiver at the Manitoba Youth Centre. My experience is that, right off the bat, you started ahead of me: you're a white male. It has nothing to do with your poverty as to whether you went right or wrong. Let's name that right off the bat. The reason that the kids I minister to are 80% aboriginal in this place is because of racism.

The second thing is that most of the kids I have are the fifth generation of people who went to residential school. You talk about bonding. We have to repair that bonding. That's when it started. The bond was broken when mothers and fathers were taken away. They never saw their parents again.

I don't know if I'm fortunate, but I'm Métis, so I wasn't sent to residential schools. Most often, it was the status people who went. The community across the river from me was a treaty community. All those kids went, and we were left in the community. There was a difference: we were cared for. I am privileged to sit here in front of you because I was cared for by those parents on the reserve who had their kids taken away from them. I got a lot of love. I was taken care of by those people because they were so lonesome.

In my experience where I work - I can only speak of that place - when those kids come into my office, I don't counsel them. We sit at the table, have tea and tell stories. I give a positive spin to all the negative stuff that's out there.

I grew up in a loving family. Like you, I was in poverty, but we were loved and were based on our spirituality. The root for me - I can't speak for anybody else - is that I grew up with parents loving me, including an extended family of aunts, uncles and grandparents who cared for me. But we lost that.

That's one of the things I try to bring back to the kids. I don't care if other people say I'm a mother figure, I'm proud to be a mother figure. I don't need any other title.

Thank you.

Rev. Novak: I think we're more or less on the same wavelength, Mr. Ramsay. I don't know much about that specific report, but I think what we're trying to say is that once they do act out and express the pain that's inside and get involved with the justice system, we believe it's very important for us to do all we can to restore the bond in the family and try to address that shattered bond.

Unfortunately, traditional justice is quite the opposite. We have kids who come from 500 miles north of Winnipeg who offend. They come down to Winnipeg. They're separated for two or three years from their families. There's no follow-up. There's no family conferencing.

We think it's very important to try to see, from the very beginning, the moment a child is apprehended, how we can bring the family together. It's not just the family, but how can we bring the neighbours together so that everyone looks after these children in trouble.

Going back to your earlier point, I think the only time when we can see the publication of names really being valuable is when you have a kind of community. The neighbours do gather and say that there's been a problem here. There's some acting out. It's going to affect all of us in the long run, so let's make a circle and talk about it.

Simply publishing the names - say that John down the block, along with his family, is all screwed up, so we now know to stay away from those kids - is some protection there, I guess, but we would like to go a step farther. Rather than just simply publishing names, let's make a community. Let's make circles in the neighbourhood and address the acting out of children as communities. Let's give society and neighbourhoods the resources to do that.

Mr. Maloney: I just have two areas, in view of the time we have.

As for the positive peer culture of the Agassiz Centre, could you elaborate a little as to why it's so wonderful and how it works?

The other point is the victim-offender mediation process. You have a 95% fulfilment of the agreements. What is the recidivism rate, and how do we get into the program? Is it an alternative measure?

.1335

Ms Lavoie: I'll talk a little bit about positive peer culture, since this is the approach used in the Agassis Youth Centre and my son has been at that centre.

We now have a group of parents who go every month to the centre to learn more about what is happening there. It was our effort to bring community rather than having people estranged by the system.

The positive peer culture, as I understand it, is an effort to help young people who, it is recognized, are more influenced by peers than by parents. So, as they are peers at the centre, a whole group becomes responsible for each other's behaviour.

The boys - I say boys because there are only boys in Portage - are in groups of 12 at the most, or have been until now. This group is constantly together, from morning until night. They are there to help one another grow in social skills and reactions.

They are questioned. They have circles. Whenever something is going wrong, they call a circle and check one another. That's the kind of language they use. The group leader stands within the circle but contributes only by being present and being a support to the young people, who are trying to help one another in changing their behaviour and their approach to dealing with one another when things get too stressful.

There's much more to it, but in rough and broad strokes, that is what it's all about. The young people become responsible for the behaviour of the group. If one does something, the whole group is called.

Mr. Maloney: How effective is it? What are your rates of recidivism? How are the boys who go there reintegrated into the community?

Ms Lavoie: We as parents have asked the same questions. It seems to work when they are there, but again, the lack is when the young people return to the community. There is nothing in place to further the effort and the steps forward that the young person may have taken.

We've heard numbers. We don't know how correct they are, but they say about 40% recidivism.

Mr. Maloney: How long has this been in operation?

Ms Lavoie: The Agassis Youth Centre has been a pioneer in doing this, and I think it's been happening for about 20 years or so. The United States has taken it as a model and it's been used internationally. It is a good model, but it is limited by the system, which does not provide for follow-up.

Mr. Maloney: And how effective is the victim-offender mediation process run by the Winnipeg mediation services? What's your rate of recidivism? And again, how do you get referred to it?

Rev. Novak: I can't give you statistics on the recidivism. The only statistics we have are the statistics they can give us, which are for completion of the agreements between victims and offenders. They say the rate is 95%. It's much higher than it is when a judge simply orders someone to make restoration.

Usually people get into victim mediation through the recommendation of crown prosecutors who are aware of mediation existing and are willing to recommend diversion. So there's the matter of education of the crown prosecutors that diversionary programs such as mediation are available. But it also depends on funding, because it's still a fairly small program, so there's a waiting list for people to get into mediation.

Mr. Maloney: Is it pre-court, after-court or both? Is it pre-disposition?

Rev. Novak: I think it would be pre-disposition.

Do you know that, Jack?

Mr. Jack George (United Church of Canada): Yes, I believe it is a recommendation of the court referenced to the mediation services program.

.1340

It seems to me we have referred to many different innovative approaches to treatment of kids in trouble with the justice system. The problems are problems of lack of communication of the positive programs that take place in aboriginal communities and take place in community programs. It seems to me the justice system needs to do a better job of communicating the successful innovations that have taken place in the country; and there are many of them. Perhaps what the justice system needs is a research grant which would look at these programs and evaluate them as rigorously as possible and communicate the successes. As the statistics tell us, there is a perception of great danger to older people and to communities at large, but in fact the rate of crime is not increasing. In some cases it is decreasing. But we do need to communicate the successful programs better to the public at large.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Gallaway): I believe Ms Cohen has a question.

Ms Cohen (Windsor - St. Clair): I just wanted to caution you on one thing. This study to which my colleague Mr. Ramsay was referring is a very controversial one. It involves meta-analysis. There's nothing new in it, no original research. It involves what they call meta-analysis of the literature that's already available.

I would caution you also to be careful about endorsing the claims in the same study that, for instance, common-law marriages do not produce children as healthy as traditional church folk do and that sort of thing. You just want to be very careful. It's a group that's sponsored by the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. Whereas you might say, well, bonding is important and we should raise welfare levels in order to allow single mothers who are in poverty more time to bond, they would not say that. It's a selective bit of information that's been given to you. It certainly wouldn't fall in line with what, for instance, Fraser Mustard has said, which also relates to the issue of bonding and the importance of healthy families.

Let me say this to you. Given that it's important for parents to bond with their children - and I agree - there can also be unhealthy bonds between parents and children. In my experience as a criminal lawyer, I frequently came across cases of incest, for instance, where there was a very strong and very loving bond between father and daughter, a very deep bond that was also very sick. In that case, in my view, there's clearly room for intervention and for breaking that bond and for restructuring it or for finding another bond to replace it.

I would ask you to comment on that, but also on the issue of bonding where there can be no bonding, because of dysfunction in the family, because of interruption of a traditional way of life, because of addiction or abuse on the part of the parent. Is it not better to replace that bond somewhere else and to find a way through the system to do that? Which system is better to do that, the criminal justice system or the social welfare system?

Ms Lavoie: Yes, I firmly believe unless there is a community around the young person all the other efforts are pretty useless. I think that is the strength of the approach in New Zealand, for example, between the young offender and the victim. A community is created in the circle, in the conferencing. It's a community of care, both for the victim and for the offender. So you can put all the lists you want in the newspapers or wherever, but if there is no community around this young offender or person who is considered dangerous, it will not make our community more free of danger. It's an illusion.

.1345

Ms Shoomski: One negative thing I've found with releasing names to the press is when the names of people who are gang members appear in the press, it's a notch for them - ``I made it to the paper''.

Ms Cohen: Gangs are a particular problem in this community, or are perceived as one, are they not?

Ms Shoomski: Yes.

Ms Cohen: We've not heard much about gang activity as we have gone across the country, but it was in the national press that in Winnipeg there is a particular problem.

Thank you.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Gallaway): Unfortunately, our time is up. We'll adjourn for two minutes while our next group from Thunder Bay comes to the table.

Thank you.

.1346

.1356

The Chair: We'll get back down to it.

I want to welcome the Thunder Bay Coalition on Youth and Crime: Marilyn McIntosh and Jarvis McComber. I understand, though, that your brief was prepared by others, includingDave Challen, Dale Sauvé, and Bob Thompson.

We want to welcome you, and I would appreciate it if first of all you'd tell us a little bit about your group. We're glad we could accommodate you in Winnipeg, which is closer than Ottawa. So thanks.

Ms Marilyn McIntosh (Vice-Chair, Thunder Bay Coalition on Youth and Crime): Thank you very much. We will be giving you a bit of history.

The Chair: Great.

Ms McIntosh: The brief we are presenting today is one that was made by a committee and endorsed by the the coalition as a whole. It focuses on areas that the coalition felt were most prudent for us to look at.

First of all, we were thrilled to find out that this review was going to be happening. We congratulate the federal government on doing it and looking at this as something that involves both provincial and community input for the review.

Thunder Bay is an area that, as some of you may know, has a population of about 113,000, but its catchment area is much larger for phase one and phase two. There are custody facilities for both phase one and phase two, secure and open.

As community members, we take our participation and responsibility in this review process very seriously. We've been trying to track you for about a year and a half. We're very appreciative of the Department of Justice sponsoring Jarvis and I today, because we are volunteers, as is everyone else with our coalition.

The Chair: I think it was probably the committee's budget that brought you here, rather than the department -

Ms McIntosh: Well, thank you.

The Chair: - just in case anybody misunderstands that.

Have you been receiving the Hansard of our proceedings? There is one available on the Internet. We can talk to you about that after if you want to follow us more closely.

Ms McIntosh: Great.

Basically, we very much feel that the Young Offenders Act is a cogent document and in and of itself it does look at the issue of responsibility and accountability for the young offender. The difficulty we see is in its implementation. We feel that the improvement of it certainly lies in the enhancement of the relationships between the federal government, the provincial government, and communities.

Our hope as a group is that we are working towards efforts that create a healthier community for our children.

We are a group of approximately 60 volunteers who make up a wide span of professional and community members, both educators, children's mental health workers, recreation, addictions, corrections, and the criminal justice system. We represent an organization that is the first of its kind in Thunder Bay, with all these people having come together and worked together. So we very much represent people who are parents, citizens, and have worked with young people and directly with those at risk.

We formed as a result of some research that had been done around looking at what are the gaps in the community in relation to supports and strategies. The people who were interviewed - approximately 70 people at that time - came together to look at the report. What happened was momentum from the report. The people themselves said we want to come together and do something about this in our community.

.1400

That was in March 1993. Since then, working groups were formed in which we brought together, again, people from a variety of different disciplines, plus young people, plus the native community, and looked from the bottom up at what would be some of the types of programs and strategies they would like to see implemented in the community. Essentially we're about 26 agencies in the community, plus parents' groups and youths.

About public attitudes and values, we certainly do see in our community a sense of anxiety around youth crimes. It very much mirrors what seems to be happening across Canada in perception, even though we as a coalition do believe the statistics that say it is really no more serious than it has been in previous years. So part of it is for us a sense that coming into the homes of everyone, every day, is a vast amount of information on the sensational acts that occur across this country and in the United States, particularly in our community. Our television is linked to Detroit. With our limited resources, which are basically just ourselves, we find it very difficult to attack this within our community in any way, to try to bring some level of sanity to this.

We're also concerned with the support there is for the militaristic-style boot camp as a solution. This very much seems to exemplify a notion that punishment will bring about change. Again, we feel part of this frustration people are actually voicing and seeing is more with the court system, the length of time between when a youth is charged and when the charge is disposed, the back-up in the courts, and the lack of youth seeing the consequences happening very shortly after the act.

We have a recommendation that we'd like to see the promotion and development of effective victim-offender reconciliation programs and supporting evaluation and research of programs across Canada. We also feel the federal government, with its research resources, should encourage community dialogue on the types of deterrence-based responses to crime that are talked about.

Essentially we feel community involvement is key to addressing the needs and to support the healthy development of children. The coalition embodies this approach by the very fact that we have around the table people who because of professional boundaries have never been in contact with each other before. We've been able to overcome turf wars. We've been able to overcome the limitations of lack of funding by becoming more creative in how we work together. So we certainly believe in the model that people working together can effect change.

Some specific things that have happened as a result of the research we did and the working group recommendations are that a youth recreation hotline has been established in the summer to provide information access to parents, workers, and children on what kinds of activities are available. At present a child and youth recreation trust fund is being developed, again bringing lots of community players together to look at how we can best develop some kind of a sponsorship program and get the word out about what is available for children in the community. We've looked at ways of supporting, through more information sharing and networking, the street youth program in Thunder Bay.

We were also the brokers for a Youth Service Canada program coming into Thunder Bay. There was an area in our community that had a lot of fire-starters. The Clarke Institute program to respond to fire-starters was used with a boys-and-girls club in concert with the fire department and the police in an area where fires were happening enormously every month. It was a six-month project, and the fire department has released the information on Thunder Bay that fires dramatically went down during this time, as children who were identified as being at risk were mentored with an older child and they did community clean-ups.

.1405

Much more work has been initiated, and we know there is much more work that we could do, but, again, I'd just like to reinforce the point that we are all volunteers on this committee.

I'll hand it over to Jarvis.

Mr. Jarvis McComber (Chair, Thunder Bay Coalition on Youth and Crime): I would also like to thank the committee, not only for the idea of going across the country and gaining information, but for the critical input that you're asking for. I can only imagine the people who have appeared before you and the people who are going to appear before you finish.

I certainly look forward to the findings of this committee. I have an idea that some of the people appearing before you don't represent the Young Offenders Act as such a bad piece of legislation. I seem to hear so much from neighbours, friends and radio and television.... We know it really isn't.

Before I get into the last part of the brief, on pages 4, 5 and 6, I'd like to give you a little bit of a background on my experience with youth justice. That might give you an idea of why I felt compelled to come forward and speak to this committee.

I was a jail guard in Thunder Bay for about five years in a maximum security jail while I was going to teacher's college. I had the opportunity of seeing 16-year-old and 17-year-old youths come into that facility before the Young Offenders Act was actually implemented. There was no doubt in my mind that it was not a place for first-time offenders to experience discipline.

It was a very interesting experience. After teacher's college and teaching in a regular school system for three years, I've taught in a secured custody facility for the past twelve years in Thunder Bay and am a program manager with the Lakehead Board of Education. That is what really got me into the report Marilyn referred to and into the interviews she did, which led to this report in Thunder Bay that dealt with gaps in services. It was the first time anybody had really interviewed me and talked about youth crime measures in Thunder Bay where I really felt that something might be done about it.... That was where the creation of the Coalition on Youth and Crime was formed. It has been a tremendous experience for me.

I know a person can spend time on a lot of different projects that end up sitting on a shelf, or a person really doesn't get that much out of it personally. This has been a really tremendous experience for me because of the number and wide variety of people who have come forward in Thunder Bay to deal with Thunder Bay issues.

A lot of what we talk about here today is really issues and solutions that work in Thunder Bay. I don't know if they'll work in Ottawa or Edmonton or Manitoba, but they certainly have worked in Thunder Bay and we're trying to carry on.

As I get into page 4, I'm going to try to go over some cost-effective measures. I had the opportunity of seeing one of your first committee meetings on the parliamentary network. I think I actually taped it because I was so interested in it. Mr. Rock was one of your first guests. I saw some of you questioning Mr. Rock about what this committee was going to do and what the intention of the committee was. He talked about the tremendous amount of money that the federal government currently spends on locking up kids.

We thought we'd get to some cost-effective measures that the federal government could spend money on rather than spending $100,000 to $127,000, or whatever is, to incarcerate a kid for one year. We think there are a lot of other ideas that we can use.

I have to stress that these ideas that I'm about to present - or two or three of them anyway - really have to be examined on a individual basis. They're not for every kid. They're not for every violent offender. Given the individual circumstances, where that kid stands or what the kid's life experiences and circumstances are, there are certain first-time offenders for whom these ideas may be more appropriate than a custody sentence.

When we talk about alternative measures and alternatives to custody, whatever we're talking about, whatever the youth involved is, we have to make sure that alternative measures or alternative custody is appropriate. It's going to have to be followed up with some strong public education so that the public doesn't think we're going soft on this.

I'll get into public education later, but I'm certainly convinced that the federal government has to do a much better job in promoting the Young Offenders Act and in educating people on what it is, what the ramifications are, what the good things and bad things are and how it compares to the adult system. The federal government has to get those points across to a lot more Canadians.

We talk about alternatives to custody. There are some local ideas in Thunder Bay that we've established with the Thunder Bay Police Department for first-time shoplifters, ideas on what we can do with people like that as far as the alternatives to custody go.

.1410

The Ontario government has been very slow to promote that idea, probably because of public education and public perception of what the Young Offenders Act is all about. It probably doesn't want to delve into too many of these ideas because of public perception, and it doesn't want to come across as being soft.

We've recommended the federal government provide cost-sharing incentives for the Ontario government and develop and support alternative measure programs. Again, it's very important that these types of measures have a very extensive evaluation tool so you can go back and look at statistics and ask whether they worked, and be able to go back to the public and say yes, in certain cases alternatives to custody do work.

On tri-level funding, in the first sentence where he says all we talk about are territorial jealousies, one thing the Thunder Bay Coalition on Youth and Crime is proud of is our ability to work with other ministries. In Ontario, as I'm sure you are aware, young offenders are broken up into phase ones and phase twos. I deal with phase twos and we're with the Solicitor General. The phase ones are overseen by COMSOC. It has different philosophies on how to deal with its youth and we have different philosophies on how to deal with our youth. We've been able to bring these ministries together within this coalition and get as much representation as we can for the overall benefit of youth in Thunder Bay.

Regardless of what agency you're with, you just have to get over all that stuff - the territorial boundaries, who you work for or what ministry you're with. We've really tried to stress that and look after the overall improvement of the youth themselves.

With tri-level funding, we'd like to see joint federal and provincial research and demonstration projects established - I'll mention a couple of those in a second - and determine opportunities for joint restructuring and development of resources. By that I mean take a look at the $127,000 we spend on incarcerated youth and maybe look toward some demonstration projects - I have one for you today - instead of just custody and all the money we're spending on custody.

Protection of society on page 6 is really a key one for me and the reason I got involved in the coalition to begin with. One of the first words in that opening sentence is a word so many people are worried about and are concerned about with the Young Offenders Act, and that is the word ``prevention''.

If we're going to prevent youth crime and especially prevent kids who are in custody now from coming back - lowering their recidivism rate - we have to look at some discharge planning.

As a teacher in a young offender unit, I'm part of a case management team. We meet every week as a case management team to do an initial plan of care, a review plan of care, or a discharge plan of care. The initial plan of care and the review plan of care go beautifully. These kids come into custody and there are two or three teachers in our facility. There's a psychometrist, a psychologist, a social worker and a nurse. There are all kinds of support in custody. It's amazing what they can do in custody.

We lay out their initial plan of care on paper - what they're going to do while they're here for the next eight months - and it looks great. The review looks great. When it gets down to the end and we do this beautiful discharge plan of care, that's where it all falls apart, in my opinion.

It's really frustrating to see kids walk out that door with so much self-esteem and hope, when you really know they're going to fall flat on their faces. Based on where I've worked for 10 or 11 years, not too many kids make it. They don't make it because of this discharge plan. So if you're going to put importance on the case management and discharge plans of care, we have to look at that. I don't mean take them by the hand for eight or ten months after they get out, I'm just talking about one to three months after they go out the door when they basically have nothing.

The mandate of corrections ends upon discharge, and there is just nothing there for them. Case managers who are assigned to kids in our facility are not even allowed contact with them once they get out. They're not supposed to see them in the mall and go for a coffee with them. There's something wrong with that.

The coalition I chaired developed a proposal on discharge planning and aftercare through the Lakehead Regional Family Centre. We're trying to get that implemented now. I'm going to leave a copy with you and I'd encourage you to take a look at it just to see what we've come up with for Thunder Bay. I really believe it would work in Thunder Bay as well as in other communities.

The last point is development of personnel. It gets into volunteers and how important and cost-effective volunteers can be. I already have a couple of volunteers from Lakehead University who come in for a teaching component. They come in their second, third, and fourth years of teachers college. It's amazing how interested and on-line they get working with these kids.

A lot of times they ask whether there are any teaching jobs down at Bluewater or wherever, because they would really like to get involved in working with these kids. They come in and volunteer and really look forward to the experience of coming into the facilities and working with these at-risk kids.

.1415

Public education, on pages six and seven, as I mentioned before is a key element. We find as a coalition that many of our philosophies and our ideas are totally different from what the average person in Thunder Bay may think. We know that some of the things our group comes up with in the meetings we hold once a month sound great around the table, but when you go to tell your next-door neighbour or you go to tell somebody else.... For example, when I tell people I'm a teacher I get ``Oh'', because teachers aren't looked upon with too much...because of all the holidays we get; but when I tell them I teach young offenders, I get really whacked.

The whole idea of public education is important. We had a really interesting experience in Thunder Bay. There was a really high crime rate in one local neighbourhood, and we had a group go into it to develop and educate the whole neighbourhood, not only on what the Young Offenders Act is, but on some of the solutions that neighbourhood could make use of as far as youth gangs, violence, break and enters, and things like that. We had a couple of kids who were former young offenders go in and actually go door to door and do a presentation at this very high-risk part of Thunder Bay. It was amazing what the results were, just for the youth. Marilyn and I were there that night, and for these four kids to get up and do this presentation, two of them former young offenders, it was amazing what they got out of that. One of them is now in our coalition. It's really amazing what you can do with partnerships and it's amazing what you can do when you communicate with people who are all dealing with the same types of kids.

I'd like to end pretty well the way I began. I would really be interested in a condensed summary of what you come up with - it would be fascinating. We sat at the back here for a couple of hours and I said to Marilyn, ``I'm glad we came early; it's really interesting to hear what other people have to say.'' I can imagine what you've heard over the last year or so.

I would encourage you to support community, regional, and national dialogue on values, attitudes, and dissemination of factual data regarding youth crime and crime prevention to the general public. Our experience has been that the more you share information - whether it's a tour, a presentation, or just a meeting with some people who don't really understand or haven't been exposed to the Young Offenders Act - it's amazing what you come out of those meetings with as far as a better understanding. I really didn't know that happens there; I wasn't sure; I didn't realize that's the way the youth justice system worked.

We have listed on page eight the ten recommendations from our brief.

Just as a final note, after ten or eleven years of working in a custody facility, I think what people are really fed up with, and I hear this more and more every day from common folk, is repeat offenders and violent offenders. I just had a kid come in who I registered for school last week who's in for his fourth or fifth time, and he got another two-month sentence. Not only can I not program for him for two months - because how many high school credits can you get in two months? - but he's been in for the fourth or fifth time and the staff really get.... It gets to be so monotonous and so repetitious with that fourth or fifth time in.

I don't know whether you look at longer sentences or whether you look at two-month sentences at all. For a kid to deserve a two-month sentence, maybe you've really got to look at one of those alternative programs and say there's something better than custody, rather than putting him in jail for two months. If you're going to put him in jail, maybe he needs to go a little bit longer than two months.

The violent offenders are something else that we see. You mentioned some of the people who were in the Edmonton facility. Since I've been there I've probably seen ten or twelve kids in on murder charges. I think you have to deal with even those people on a very individual basis. I've seen kids come in for a murder charge, something that's gang-related - vicious, violent, premeditated.

I've also seen a kid from our local community, who had a very abusive father with a very severe drinking problem, walk in one night at 2 a.m. and see his father on top of his mother just pounding her face in, and he stabbed his father. He came in and did three years in our place. He did it very well. He went through alcohol, drug addiction, and drug rehab. I see him in the malls every day now. He's got two kids. He's done very, very well.

I'm not saying that every kid who's in for murder should be dealt with that way, but all I ever hear on TV and radio are demonstrations and marches that really key in on that murder thing. As far as public education, we've got to get off of that. We've got to treat those kids and they have to be disciplined - there's no doubt about that - but I think by the same token we can't overemphasize that. I think that's part of the federal government's role - to educate the public on the realities of the Young Offenders Act.

.1420

I'd just like to close. We start off our summary with a quote from Bora Laskin, and the reason we threw Bora Laskin in there is because Bora Laskin has a relation in Thunder Bay who used to be the mayor of Thunder Bay - Saul Laskin. We thought it was a very appropriate quote:

I think right now there are some sustaining elements that aren't quite there.

Thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. St-Laurent.

[Translation]

Mr. St-Laurent: Thank you. I would like to begin by making a brief aside. You spoke about treatment programs for substance abusers in penitentiaries. You know as well as I do that inmate often take part in these programs so as to have an activity on the outside or a somewhat different activity while they are inside.

You said earlier that you became a member of your committee because you had been a guard in a maximum security prison. Personally, I'm on the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs because I too was a prison guard before being elected to the House of Commons. So I know a little about how inmates behave. I'm not embittered by my experience, quite the opposite.

Ms McIntosh, you mentioned that you consulted many people about the overall issue. You know, I enjoy good food, and I would like to draw a comparison here to a cake recipe. In order for the recipe to work, there must always be some sort of follow-up. If we cut somewhere, even if we use good ingredients, the cake will never turn out well.

In the course of your consultations, did people complain about a lack of follow-up to consultations in Ontario? Let me give a more specific example to make my point clearer. Let's say the owner of a corner store arrests a seven-year old for minor shoplifting. He calls the police and the parents, who are not far away. The people in the community may know someone who works in an organization that could be helpful. And the whole thing holds together until the young person works out his problem. So a little work is done on the problem, rather than on the punishment. I must say I'm sick of boring about all that talk about punishment. But what has been done for the child with respect to the emotional component of the problem?

Do you have any problems of this type in Ontario? Is there something missing, something that you need in order to achieve results? Is something missing somewhere? You must have heard about that in your group.

[English]

Ms McIntosh: Yes, that was echoed 100%. I think our community represents what happens when police officers, lawyers, judges, probation officers, and health officers begin to know each other. The follow-up - certainly there has been no funding for it. I know phase one has had the community support team, which on occasion is able to do some follow-up upon release from custody. It's done now on a very informal basis in our community, in the sense of people knowing other people and trying to access programs or supports.

.1425

One of the recommendations that came out of the ``Gaps'' report was a coordinated response to youth who get involved in criminal activity. I don't think we're anywhere near being able to answer that completely. In our community we do it as best we can by networking and knowing each other, but I would really love to see the federal government and the provincial government do some kind of demonstration project with the Ministry of Education and what not. That is also one of the players we worked with.

Some of these kids can be identified early on. Let's look at ways we can work with the schools and the education system to better support families. Some of that's been happening, but at a very turtle rate in our community.

Mr. McComber: One of the profound benefits of the coalition itself is....

We may not have implemented a lot of proposals. A lot of people look at what you have done concretely and what you have done in the last two years to help kids involved in the justice system.

But one of the benefits of the coalition, without a doubt, has been the contact we have made among those 25 or 30 agencies. I don't know how many times you've been able to pick up the phone within Thunder Bay and phone somebody from another agency or ministry. You can say ``I met him at the coalition. I know he's interested in solutions to youth crime. I'm going to phone him up and see what he thinks about this.''

Just with the name contacts and the ideas that float around the table at our monthly meetings, it's amazing what you can get done with a group of volunteers representing all these different agencies. That has really been a huge benefit for us in tackling some of these problems without any money.

[Translation]

Mr. St-Laurent: What is the missing link in Ontario? There are certainly individuals that will start by identifying or targeting young offenders and perhaps referring them to the police, who won't know what to do with them. Where is the weak link in the natural chain that should exist in follow-up services for young offenders?

[English]

Ms McIntosh: We're trying to deal with the fact that the gaps are in each of the systems. The justice system, the law enforcement system, the education system and the probation system all work very much in isolation from each other. So the gaps are with none of those being able to work together.

I don't for a minute say we have found a way to address it. We're just finding a very informal way to try, on a child-by-child basis, to deal with it. But certainly the problem gets exacerbated when police try to respond to a situation for which they don't have information or resources. That's one of the gaps. Then the families start falling through when educators don't have the information or ways of connecting with resources.

There are definite gaps between each of them. Only through more opportunities to break down the walls of the different professional barriers will some of these children not be continually going through the same crime door.

I don't know if that answers your question so much. There are gaps everywhere and we're just trying to deal with them as best we can.

[Translation]

Mr. St-Laurent: You were saying that you needed funding and research to learn more about the various experiments that have been tried, including boot camps, and probably holistic approaches as well.

Mr. McComber, you mentioned that you needed more than two months imprisonment in order to work with a young person. It seems to me that you are going from left to right, but you are in a state of uncertainty in this regard. Is this because you do not have all the information you need? Are you reflecting the concerns your committee heard during the consultations?

.1430

[English]

Mr. McComber: I think the research will show that some projects, some proposals, and some ideas we're going to use to treat youth crime are good and effective and some of them aren't. I think by that recommendation we're talking about.... All kinds of projects and ideas have been developed across Canada, within different ministries and in different provinces. Some of them work and some of them don't. I don't particularly think the militaristic-style boot camp is an effective way of going.

When you talk about data and research, that's what we mean. Look very effectively at the data, find out which ones work, maybe based on some of the hearings and depositions your committee has heard, and put the ones that work into action.

I mentioned the discharge plan, the discharge part of it. That was a proposal, an idea we had developed. We had a working group of about twelve people. One was a parent of a young offender, one was a probation officer. We had a really good cross-section of people dealing with that particular issue. That type of proposal or idea and the research we did for that proposal we think will work, and the people who were involved in that working group and who supposedly have the expertise believe it will work. Those are the kinds of things we are trying to get implemented.

I'm not fully aware of all the the other ideas and all the other data available. That's what we're saying: to examine the data and effectively implement the ones that work.

The Chair: Mr. Ramsay.

Mr. Ramsay: You are volunteers and you're a member of a volunteer group. Nurses at some hospitals in Alberta don't want volunteers in the hospital, although there are, because it threatens their positions. What's going to happen with your volunteer group and the cooperation you now have with some of the people who are in the justice system if you begin to threaten their positions?

The point I'm getting at was raised yesterday. I've been aware of it for years. It's this. The answer to the problem we're dealing with, particularly in the area of prevention of crime, has to come from the communities. It will not come from government. It won't. It won't come from the institutions of government.

Aboriginal people tell me that when a member of the RCMP is transferred into their area and that member gets along well with them and relates personally with them, they don't last very long. They're quickly transferred out.

I remember when I was in the RCMP, in order for us to get more manpower - we were working twenty hours a day - the only proof the Treasury Board would accept was statistics. So instead of my checking you when you went through the stop sign to see if you were impaired, to see if you were okay and simply warn you and let you get on your way and not clutter up the courts with you, after that edict came in I began not to serve you but to use you. I needed you as a statistic. So I took you through the court and I caused that expense in order to justify the need for more services so I could get a day off and so on.

The point I'm making is this. We had a lady appear before us this week who pointed out, when we got on this subject, that they had an excellent diversion program working in northern Alberta, to the point where it was drastically reducing the number of kids going into court. It was stopped by a crown prosecutor. Do you sense that as you become more successful as a volunteer crew, you are going to have resistance from institutions and individuals that see you as a threat?

Mr. McComber: I couldn't agree with you more on your opening statement about local initiatives needing to come from the community. There's no doubt about that.

.1435

I've said before that some of the ideas we've presented and some of the ideas we've thrown around the table in Thunder Bay will only work in Thunder Bay. They may not work in a larger centre. But local ideas is what the coalition is all about. It's 100% local. I certainly haven't sensed any problem at the institution where I work or at some of the other phase one institutions where people I know work. There have been open arms and a welcome mat saying come on in.

With funding the way it is today, if someone wants to come in and do some volunteering work, he or she is welcome. As I say, I have two working with me right now. The biggest hassle is getting the security clearance, doing a CPIC check and making sure they're appropriate. Usually, if I'm going to put their name forward I've done a little bit of homework myself and they are suitable for the job.

Mr. Ramsay: If your program becomes successful to the point where -

Mr. McComber: Which program are you referring to?

Mr. Ramsay: I am referring to your volunteer program and the work you're doing. If you can develop programs that become successful, and someone in government sees fit to expand this program and to inject or to transfer funds from the Department of Justice to you people so you can do your job better, then there is going to be competition for funding.

If you can continue to do your job simply through the work of volunteers, then this is going to be wonderful. Do you see it as possible for you to continue simply through volunteer work? I don't know whether you have an office or space or whatever.

Mr. McComber: We talked about this a bit back there. We said there is only so much a volunteer group can do. There is no doubt about this. The commitment is definitely there. The commitment level is unbelievable.

Ms McIntosh: I think I can speak to the model because we've already gone through this process, and we've very much set a precedent where we do not, as a coalition, go for funding around these programs. We work with organizations identified by these working groups as the most appropriate agency or organization to sponsor it. We then simply act as an organization they can access for support or direction in what they develop.

So we as a coalition in our community are in no way perceived or interested in becoming some kind of a power organization. We are working with at least four organizations right now, helping them to better develop their own programs by linking them up with many of the other agencies.

Mr. Ramsay: Let me give you an example. We have visited some very good programs that have picked children up who have fallen through the cracks and bumped against the justice system and so on and they are doing excellent work. One of them was the Sydney Mines facility outside Sydney, Nova Scotia. I was amazed and very much encouraged by what we heard there. On the way out to the bus, I was talking to the manager. I asked him whether, if he is able to expand this program with the same success rate, he anticipates resistance from the status quo. He said he is receiving it already, and they are working on a shoestring.

When I look at the youth committees or the community youth crime committees, I'm very encouraged. I'd like to know more about them. I'd like to talk to people who sit on them and I'd like to find out the dynamics that have led to success in those committees. But I see there will be a resistance. I hope there isn't. I hope there is a realization that something has to change. I find the greatest obstacle to the kind of early detection and preventive work we hear so much about and I think the majority of members support is that if we could reduce crime, let's say by 50%, how many positions is it going to threaten? Can we empty our courts? Will we no longer need so many probation officers, no longer need so many crown prosecutors and defence counsels and so on?

.1440

That is an obstacle. It's a tough one to deal with, and it has to be dealt with, I think, by leaders in government who will say, look, we're going to fund this program, we're going to expand this program, we're going to bleed a bit of the money from the back end of the system into the front end to support this system. Yet I see where all the components of the justice system will make representation to the justice minister and will say this won't work, this won't work.

Those are some of my thoughts and my concerns. You can comment on them.

I just want to wish you the very best. We need more volunteers.

Mr. McComber: The quote I always keep in the back of my mind - I saw it in a newspaper article at one time - is about the amount of money spent on young offender programming and custody. It was to the effect that we need to put as much money in our back door as we do in our front door, because an awful lot of money goes in.... In the place I work it's amazing how much money is put into young offender programs, and we're on a piece of property that is really an adult facility. It has 150 adults and 35 young offenders. That just happened to be where they threw them in 1984, when the act came in.

Mr. Ramsay: But you do understand, though, if we begin to move 50% of the $9 billion or$10 billion from the back end into the front end, there is going to be resistance.

Ms McIntosh: I can speak to that from the three years we've had. We have not had that as a problem. I've certainly been in other groups and coalitions where that has been the case. I think one of the keys to our coalition is it is driven by people who see themselves as parents and citizens in a community, not just people who benefit from working within the criminal justice system or the youth-at-risk system. Immediately you'll see the philosophy towards youth we have in there. That was one of the first things we hammered out. We said let us always remember this is why we are here; let the concerns of youth and the future of youth be the thing that keeps us together. I think those who have other agendas have come and gone.

The Chair: Mr. Maloney.

Mr. Maloney: You were here this morning and perhaps you heard reference to one of the speakers on the Brandon project, where children are identified as being at risk and they are worked with. Does your organization do something similar, or do you have infrastructure in place such that you could do something similar?

Ms McIntosh: We are a non-administrative organization. We have no projects or programs per se. We're more of a social planning body, trying to do education. But certainly there is a movement in our community, with the education changes, to try to look at earlier intervention and identification of children at risk. There is a Health Canada project going on, the CAPC, Community Action Program for Children, that tries to work with families and children at risk. Certainly the things they look at doing are just trying to connect them more into the community.

Mr. Maloney: You also have a heading here about tri-level funding, and under your recommendations you recommend establishing federal-provincial joint restructuring. Where's the third party? Is it the municipal government? Is it the board of education?

Ms McIntosh: Yes, I'm sorry, I probably should have clarified that a bit more. Yes, the municipal level.

Mr. Maloney: And how, at the municipal level, could a community get more involved with ourselves and with the provinces? How do you envisage that?

Ms McIntosh: There are all kinds of neighbourhood projects, through the city, through recreation. Our city handles social services, so we are looking at much of what you mentioned, sir, in terms of the gap: trying to find ways through the tri-level to have better cohesion for children accessing, say, mental health services and social services and having to figure out themselves what other supports are there in the areas each government body has some kind of jurisdiction over, looking at some kinds of projects that are smoother in responding to and working with families.

Mr. Maloney: You also endorse victim-offender reconciliation.

Ms McIntosh: Yes, absolutely.

Mr. Maloney: Do you see your organization or an adjunct of it participating in these, or organizing them?

Ms McIntosh: Certainly there are organizations in our community that would be interested in that kind of direction and able to respond to it.

Mr. Maloney: Which ones?

.1445

Ms McIntosh: I think the John Howard Society would be. The community support team with the phase one could be another.

Mr. Maloney: I have no further questions, Madam Chair.

The Chair: Thank you. Mr. Gallaway, did you have anything to add?

Mr. Gallaway: I have one comment. I don't know if you've been here most of the morning, but I know you've been here awhile. At most stops this committee makes, we seem to hear from individuals - often from government - who have a very simple approach to the problem.

This morning we heard from the Attorney General that there's a five-step process, that if these five steps are followed you're going to cure the problem - at least that's the inference. Yet you have indicated to us that in Thunder Bay the community approach is working, that communities can in fact help themselves and solve problems within your region.

One of your recommendations that I thought was interesting is the recommendation to encourage and support community, regional and national dialogues on values added to the dissemination of factual data regarding youth crime and crime prevention to the general public. I think that's the nub of the problem.

I'd like to think that in this country we have a common base of values that we all share. Yet it is in the translation of those values into our attitudes - which ultimately become part of our belief system - that we seem to have this breakdown. Because the belief system with respect to the problem here - if we listen to certain witnesses - is that (a) this is a problem out of control and (b) the politicians involved, including this committee, may be in some way intransigent, not open to change, and may have our minds made up.

That said, I'd like to know what changes, if any, you have been able to discern in the Thunder Bay area that have occurred within the public perception or within public beliefs with respect to young people and, in fact, are all young people who come into conflict bad and beyond redemption....

Mr. McComber: It was actually the Limbrick project that I referred to. That was one really good example. This certain area of Thunder Bay is known as a very high crime area. People say not to hang around that area and not to drive your car down there at night. We went right in there with a group of young people and educated the whole neighbourhood on what the Young Offenders Act is.

There were a number of sessions. We were able to educate them about exactly what the young offender system is like. They went on a tour of a phase one facility to see where these kids are locked up. Those young people - and I stress that it's important to get young people involved in this whole thing, and as I said, one of them is involved with our coalition now - were able to go through that.

We also had an open forum last spring to speak out against violence. CKVR TV did a very extensive community town-hall meeting on violence. We were asked to send one of four speakers or panellists to that program. With the number of people who showed up that night, we were able to get across some of the philosophies of the Thunder Bay Coalition on Youth and Crime, like what our philosophy toward youth is, and what we're trying to do as far as filling in the gaps in services that have been recognized in Marilyn's report.

Those are just two examples. As we get a little bit more publicity and people find out that we do have somebody from the Thunder Bay police department on our coalition, somebody from probation and parole, a parent of a young offender, a teacher - they find out about the cross-section of people we have involved - we've been approached on numerous occasions by a number of different people. They know there's a lot of experience on the coalition. They feel very good about approaching us and asking what we think about the amendments to the Young Offenders Act or about this program that the recreation department is going to.... A trust fund is being set up for kids who can't afford sports equipment. They're asking what we think because they know we have the experience.

It's been encouraging for us. And when I say it's been a rewarding experience, those are the types of things you really feel good about, because slowly but surely you start to change people's minds about what the realities are.

.1450

Mr. Gallaway: Thank you.

The Chair: I want to thank you for coming to see us today and for your presentation.

Ms McIntosh: Thank you.

Mr. McComber: Thank you very much.

The Chair: We're going to rise now and a bus will meet us at the Delta at 2:45 p.m.

The meeting is adjourned.

Return to Committee Home Page

;