[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Friday, October 11, 1996
.0955 
[English]
The Chair: We're back on the record and in order.
This morning we have Citizens Against Violence. The president is Beverley Frey, who will apparently give the presentation and answer questions. Also with us are Jim Downey, an assistant; Anita Abbott, program committee; Tracy Walsh, a victim, who will also answer questions; and John Prystanski from Winnipeg city council, who will also answer questions.
Thank you for being here. Ms Frey, if you want to start, we will hear your presentation and carry on from there.
Ms Beverley Frey (President, Citizens Against Violence): Thank you, Madam Chair.
The Citizens Against Violence organization thanks this committee for allowing our presentation to be heard. We are encouraged by the fact that you are reviewing the act and plan to make changes.
I should tell you that we have 31 members, 30 of whom have been victims of crime. We have first-hand knowledge of how crime can change our lives and those of our families. My own son was brutally beaten for a skate board by a street gang. Tracy, one of my colleagues who is here today, was kidnapped and left for dead. She had been brutally beaten and knows violence.
Look at the scope of the problem we face. The police estimate that there are 800 street gang members, 75% of whom are native Canadians, and this makes for 600 meandering street gang members. We believe there are 2,000 gang members in this city, and this makes up for 1,500 native members. At least 50% are young offenders, which makes for either 90 or 225 young gang members who are ruthless and vicious.
We, the victims of street gang violence, believe the Young Offenders Act gives every advantage to the criminal and none to the victims. This has caused our lives to be poisoned and our hearts to be broken.
Here's a list of what we find to be unfair in the act.
Since there are so many native youth involved in street gangs, we suggest that the native organizations be given a significant role in dealing with the problem. Our own system is so overloaded we are ineffective.
At the time charges are laid, the police should be given a more significant role. After all, they are our front-line troops in this battle, and they are experienced. Why leave them out and use only lawyers?
Plea-bargaining has been increased so much that the original serious crimes have been diluted. Victims resent this. Very often there are plea bargainings from a serious crime to a less serious crime, and 75% are usually on probation. Six boys were on probation when they beat my son and killed another boy.
With respect to mandatory review, we believe one year is not enough time for young offenders to receive adequate counselling, since two-thirds of their sentence is already served before treatment and counselling begins. Mandatory review is considered a laughing matter by street gangs. They know there is not enough personnel to monitor them closely and they commit further crimes.
.1000
We believe remedial programs do not exist. Not only are they voluntary, but they are also merely informational, not remedial.
Have you thought of tying in the curfew on convicted young offenders and monitoring them with electronic devices? These two go well together. If monitoring is a financial problem, why not use a volunteer group such as ours?
Here are some recommendations from two grandparents whose grandson was a gang member. When he tried to quit, he was shot, and is now a paraplegic for the rest of his life. His mother left him because she could not stand the misery.
First, change the youth centres back into reform schools with strict discipline. There should be no choice as to working, and work assignments should be mandatory, not voluntary.
Second, perhaps some non-violent youth could stay in the youth centre setting, but recidivists and violent youths should be in stricter settings that recognize that they are lesser criminals and have a better chance to reform instead of learning how to be a better criminal.
Third, there should not be bail for young offenders deemed to have severe social or emotional problems or a history of recidivism.
Any young offender who is a victim of fetal alcohol syndrome or fetal alcohol effects should be able to receive immediate federal help. The federal help should be directed to remedial sources rather than giving it to the parent. FAS/FAE is Canada-wide. The earlier the intervention, the better it is, and we will have less violent youth.
Four, there should be no let-outs, early reviews, early probation and coeds in the youth centres to ensure that young female offenders are not recruited by male inmates or young pimps. Further, guards must be instructed to have no contact with female offenders upon their release. Should this rule be violated, the guard should be released immediately. This also applies equally to homosexual recruitment. These kids are charged under the Young Offenders Act, which is federal.
Five, there should be heavy penalties for no-shows, out on bail or probation.
Six, these kids are charged under the Young Offenders Act, and if parents are fined for the misdeeds of their kids then so should the youth under the jurisdiction of the provincial or federal authority.
Seven, provisions ought to be placed in the Young Offenders Act for children under 12 who commit such serious offences as arson, stealing, rape or sexual assault. It is obvious a child under 12 who has done these terrible crimes needs immediate psychological help.
We believe:
i) for youths under 12 the first step or misdeed should be a warning to the parents in front of them;
ii) the second offence should be a fine for the parents, with perhaps a need for an ombudsman for parents who have been unable to find help to take care of immediate needs;
iii) these penalties should be advertised in the media a full year before the law is put in place;
iv) for violent theft involving attacking a person, first offence, a warning to parents - second offence, immediately to reform school;
v) no bail or leave should be granted unless a qualified professional recommends it; and
vi) lower the age to ten when an indictable offence can be laid.
I phoned the University of Manitoba's Dr. Schludermann, a doctor of psychology. I asked him at what age children can be held accountable for what they have done. He suggested age ten.
Finally, we also believe that when a young offender is sentenced to two years at the Manitoba Youth Centre he should be doing his time for two years in the Manitoba Youth Centre.
Our fear is that youth are treated with such leniency that the Young Offenders Act is a laughing stock. We understand that youth should be given every chance to change, but unless stricter measures are used they don't have a chance to change. This is particularly true in this age of reducing budgets. For example, the number of probation officers has been reduced to three in Winnipeg. We do not wish to teach our youth that crime leads to a Club Med situation.
This is respectfully submitted by the Citizens Against Violence.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
The Chair: Thank you. Mr. Nunez.
.1005
Ms Frey: If I may say, Madame Chair, Mr. Prystanski is going to present right now.
The Chair: I do not have Mr. Prystanski as a presenter on my list.
Mr. John Prystanski (Citizens Against Violence): My understanding is that my name was provided to the committee, and I believe there is a presentation in front of you.
The Chair: You have a brief?
Mr. Prystanski: Yes, I handed it to one of your clerks this morning.
The Chair: When did you make these arrangements, Mr. Prystanski?
Mr. Prystanski: I made it with Citizens Against Violence, as part of their delegation.
The Chair: Do you mean you made the arrangements this morning?
Mr. Prystanski: No.
Ms Frey: No, it was on this sheet a while ago.
The Chair: Fine, go ahead.
Mr. Prystanski: Thank you.
Good morning. On behalf of the citizens of Winnipeg, we thank you for taking the time to hear our concerns about youth violence and what we believe would be the guiding principle for the reform of the Young Offenders Act.
I have been a representative of an inner-city ward for the past seven years. We have had the majority of street gang violence, and the average family income is below the average for the rest of Winnipeg.
The acts of violence that have been demonstrated by youth seem to be a way of life for those who believe that the gift of life is just an empty shell with no hope of finding the oyster where the pearl of life is hiding.
I believe the policymakers of our city, province and country have an obligation to the citizens of Winnipeg to provide proper policy direction that would allow all citizens to live a life free of being terrorized and threatened because someone has not had the opportunity to become successful except through a life of crime.
There are four fundamental issues that should be used to determine the effectiveness of any proposed changes.
Is there justice for the victim? The victims of violence are often forgotten in the Young Offenders Act. Regardless of the sentence for the young offender, the victim will often live with the psychological and physical scars of their aggressor's action. There are ways to lessen that effect and at the same time to let the healing process begin for the victim.
Will the public be safer because the youth has been dealt with? Often we see sentencing being placed on the aggressor to deal with what appears to be his needs, and we forget that the public at large has a general right to be safe because the criminal is being dealt with by the justice system.
Will the young offender have access to opportunities for rehabilitation? The 13-year-old who has not been given the opportunity to learn about his mistakes and is only shown how other young offenders behave in the negative will only be learning how to continue his life of crime.
What are we willing to do to prevent youth crime from occurring? In our search for justice, will we be willing to accept a quick fix where out of sight is out of mind, or are we going to invest in the tools that will help today's youth form a positive opinion that a life of crime does not pay?
The Young Offenders Act should be amended with the following principles in order to allow for fundamental changes to occur.
Public safety and accountability are the overriding principles.
Youth have to accept responsibility for their actions. Gone are the days when you can say the child did not know what he or she was doing.
Protection of society is best served by rehabilitation, not continued punishment.
When youth go to court, compel their parents or guardians to participate in court or economic actions of the youth. There must be a legal obligation to the parents to exercise responsibility, care and supervision for their child, for example, that the child does not skip school and comes into the house in the evening when it starts to get dark outside.
We do not have to publish the name of the youth. Let's not give them any status symbols for their criminal activities.
More community service opportunities.... Make use of youth justice committees. Let's show the youth that his or her actions have to be accounted for, and the corrections of his or her mistakes will be recognized in the community.
Young offenders have to go to trial earlier, for example, a maximum of 90 days.
.1010
Amend the Young Offenders Act and the Criminal Code to change the age from twelve to ten years of age.
Make it easier for hard-core repeat offenders and serious crimes to be moved to the adult court.
Stiffer sentences for repeat offenders. There comes a time when some people cannot cooperate with society and the public becomes the predominant concern.
Ladies and gentlemen, I thank you for allowing me the time to present. I can only hope these ideas will help assist you in making our community a much safer and happier environment to reside in.
The Chair: Thank you.
Mr. Nunez, ten minutes.
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez (Bourassa): It is the first time I participate in the consultations held by the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. I am responsible for immigration and citizenship in the House of Commons. I am glad to be here in Winnipeg, Manitoba. I was here 17 years ago for a national union convention. I have very fond memories of your city.
I wish to express my sympathy for the victims of criminal offences committed by young people. Victims must be protected by law. You have made a few comments or suggestions I tend to agree with, although with some reservations.
To start with, I would like to ask Ms Frey how come the data she gave us about the number of young natives in street gangs differ from the police data. You told us that, according to the police, there are 800 young people in street gangs and that 75% of the young offenders are natives. You say however that there are 2 000 young people in street gangs, 1 500 of whom are natives. That number looks a bit exaggerated to me. Could you tell me where you took the numbers mentioned in your presentation?
[English]
Ms Frey: I believe there are approximately 2,000 gang members in the city. I was told there were 2,000 gang members in the city.
Mr. Nunez: Who told you?
Ms Frey: I can't really tell you right now. Let's just say I have a source, and they told me there were 2,000 gang members in the city. When I say ``gang members'', I'm talking about offenders, 2,000 adults and young offenders. That was the figure I was given.
That's how it makes up these figures. I was told it's about 2,000 gang members. That's exactly what I was told.
Mr. Prystanski: First of all, I would like to welcome Mr. Nunez from Quebec here and thank him for participating in these very worthwhile debates in our city.
The number, which has easily been identified by our Winnipeg police services, indicates that the identified individuals they can put a picture, a name, and a face to equal approximately 900 street gang members. Those initially started as individuals around ages eight, nine, ten, and over the last several years they have grown up to be young adults, in their late teens and early twenties. The remaining figures come from associates we know they have.
Can we identify the other 50% with a name and an address or a picture? No, we can't. Do we know they exist? Yes, we do. We have documentation for approximately 900 of them.
.1015
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: How did you establish that very high percentage, around 75%, of young natives in a city where they are a minority?
[English]
Mr. Prystanski: It's not a figure that we've pulled out of a hat. Again, it comes from statistical information that we have from our police sources that have identified our street gangs. In Winnipeg our street gang membership, if I can use that term, is made of predominantly of the native community. That's not something we're very proud of, but we have to recognize that, and, if we're going to deal with it through these particular hearings, at least make it available to your committee.
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: Don't you think that, by giving those numbers, you might contribute to intensify the prejudice against natives, and particularly against young natives? That looks a bit exaggerated. I don't know if your statistics are scientific or not.
[English]
Mr. Prystanski: We don't intend to be; it's not our intention to be adding to the problem. What we're witnessing here through Citizens Against Violence is part of their own experience with the Winnipeg street gang problem. Ms Frey and our colleagues are all individuals who have experienced this problem firsthand. It's not something we take a lot of pride or pleasure in discussing, but if we don't discuss these facts we won't correct the problem. We owe it to all the citizens of Winnipeg - regardless of where they come from and who they are - to correct the problem.
I think the greatest social injustice to our community is to not acknowledge the problem and try to deal with it in a uniform, universal way when we know there are problems that communities want to have addressed separately. That is why we asked within our recommendations that the Young Offenders Act be amended to allow for the aboriginal community to play a greater role in helping deal with some of these problems.
Mr. Jim Downey (Citizens Against Violence): Madam Chairman, it wasn't the intention of Citizens Against Violence to cast any aspersions against the native population. We believe the figures we hear and have listed. I don't think it matters too much whether it's 90 or 225. There are a lot of native children loose and unsupervised in the community. I don't understand why the native children do not come under the control and jurisdiction of some of the native leaders.
We're in the province of Manitoba, which is a leader in native independence. They're fighting for control of their justice. It seems to me that the act ought to give to juvenile offenders, as an alternative option, a chance to be treated and handled and supervised by native organizations. I think we are classical failures in dealing with that. They couldn't do any worse. That was our intention - to try to involve the native leadership, particularly under the aegis of Chief Fontaine.
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: Thank you.
.1020
[English]
The Chair: Mr. Ramsay.
Mr. Ramsay (Crowfoot): I'd like to thank you for your presentation.
Always in these discussions on young offenders, or on justice generally, we have two concerns. One is to prevent young people getting involved in crime. The other is what to do with the violent offenders who cause a threat to members of society.
Again, we were in Alberta, where we visited one of the closed-custody institutions. They gave us a list of their high-profile members, and that list includes 35 of the 197 in that particular institution. There are at least six or seven murderers here, and there are convictions on manslaughter as a result of a break and enter that caused the death of some individual.
I certainly look at my role on this committee as an attempt to strike a reasonable balance between the needs of the safety of society on the one hand, and the need to direct more resources into the area of early detection and prevention of our young children getting involved, whether they're native children or otherwise. I think we have to look at prevention. At the same time, though, what do we do when young offenders are released back into society, are a threat - and they've proven they are a threat by their past actions - and if unrehabilitated, will continue to be a threat?
Those are some of the problems our committee is wrestling with, and we hear presentations made to this committee from both sides of those issues. Sometimes I wonder whether the presentations are balanced or carry the balance we need to hear. I think the safety of society is number one. We have to protect society. But there's also a sound argument that says the best protection for society is early detection and prevention: keep these young children from ever getting involved in the criminal justice system. So there is a sound argument on both sides of the issue.
I have some concern about something we discussed yesterday with the Attorney General when he appeared before us. Since 1984 we have seen the federal government - which is directly responsible constitutionally for the safety of society under the peace, order and good government head of the Constitution - seemingly abandon its responsibility in that area for anyone under the age of 12. If some 10-year-old or 11-year-old commits an act that would otherwise be a crime, it isn't a crime, and our provincial authority has to deal with it. But it doesn't do so under the authority of the criminal law because there is no criminal law authority for it to do so. What it has to do is approach the child from the viewpoint of child welfare, which is a constitutional authority of the provinces. I therefore have grave concerns in this area, which is why the party I represent would advocate the lowering of the age to 10 years.
Yesterday we heard a compromise suggestion on lowering the age from 12 to 10. That compromise was to simply grant the power to the Attorney General, or perhaps to the crown prosecutor through the Attorney General, to raise into the Young Offenders Act serious offences committed by 10-year-olds or 11-year-olds or a child of any age. Under the authority of the Young Offenders Act, this child could then be dealt with. I think that's sound. I think that's reasonable. It certainly doesn't sound unreasonable to me.
.1025
We hear from victims not only before this committee, but also in the letters, petitions and phone calls that we get. There is a growing population of victims, and every time there's a murder, whether it's by a young offender or an adult, that circle continues to grow - the parents, the extended family, friends and associates and the public at large. The ripple effect goes right across the country. And there's a growing number. Each day violence is committed against individuals.
So when I look at the Young Offenders Act and the number one responsibility of the state to protect society, I think there are deficiencies in the Young Offenders Act. The age is one. And although I see in the recommendations here that you wouldn't publish the names, when we asked some of the young offenders they said a sexual offender should be named to provide protection for members of society.
As a parent I could do one of two things. I could do what I can to help that young offender or I could keep my children away from that young offender and at least ensure that my children are protected from the temptation that young offender might have to repeat the offence.
We also have concerns about the upper age limit and 16-year-olds and 17-year-olds committing murder. We talked to some of these people in the closed custody facilities. It's very clear that the rehabilitative programs will work only for those who want it to work, for those who are seeking to change their patterns of behaviour.
We looked at holding parents accountable. We were in the Northwest Territories where we heard that 5% of the children are accompanied by their parents to young offenders court. This is unacceptable to me. There should be some sanction within the law that will allow the court to insist that the persons who are firstly responsible for their children - the parents - should at least be present to hear all of the facts about what's happened, what the child has done, who they have harmed, the extent of the damage and so on.
I also recommend - as we have heard at least once - that the old offence of contributing to the delinquency of a juvenile, which used to exist under the Juvenile Delinquents Act, be reinstituted so that parents, police and society have tools to protect their children against the conduct of these adults or older people who draw the young children into crime.
I've named these three or four or five amendments that we would make to the Young Offenders Act, and I'd like you to comment on them, if you would. Would any member of the panel like to comment?
Mr. Prystanski: First of all, I do not disagree with granting the authority to raise a 10-year-old into the Young Offenders Act. Preferably I would like to see the age in the Young Offenders Act lowered to 10, because there's a mindset among today's youth - who are becoming well educated in the criminal field - that they cannot be touched under the age of 12. And I don't think allowing them the opportunity of a status symbol by having their crime raised into the Young Offenders Act would be doing them justice. We would like to see the age lowered so that the kids themselves know they have to face responsibility for their actions.
.1030
As for publishing the names of young sexual offenders, the recommendation that I made today in terms of not publishing the names of children is to deal with those kids doing the breaking and entering and more serious crimes, one of those being what I believe to be one of the two ultimate crimes, that of taking someone's life. They should not be afforded the luxury of being seen to be a big person in the criminal community. It is our understanding that when someone takes another life, that's the ultimate offence someone can commit. Often these kids are looking for that attention, because they don't get it at home. We as a society should not be condoning their activities in reverse.
About the sexual offenders and the publishing of their names, I personally haven't been able to pay much attention to that area. My area of expertise, fortunately, has not fallen into having to deal with those problems from the perspective of our city.
Having an understanding of the criminal justice system among the inmates - although I haven't participated in that field at all - my understanding is that the skinners, as they're referred to, would face severe punishment among their peers. Can that child be rehabilitated at that early an age for such a horrendous crime? I would hope so. Would I want to place the burden of them to be further invited into crime and violence? I don't know if I would accept that.
.1035
Rehabilitation will only work for those who want it. Although I don't believe the majority of children 10, 12, 14 or 15 years old are involved in severely horrendous crimes, if they're not given the opportunity to reform and put in an environment where reform is their only option, they will never go for that.
I suspect the majority of us have children. If they don't want to clean their rooms do you still prevent them from cleaning their rooms? You don't say ``Sorry, you don't have to do it. I'll do it.'' You make the child clean his or her room. In the same way, you find ways to ensure that children participate in rehabilitation programs.
I think the majority of kids want to be good kids and I think they just need the leadership to allow them to go in that direction.
In terms of the Juvenile Delinquents Act and the clause ``contributing to the delinquency of a minor'', I think when the act was changed from JDA to the Young Offenders Act that was something that was severely missed.
Right now in my own neighbourhood we know there are people who are getting kids to break into houses. These kids are under 12, or very young, and we can't do anything about these adults. That's wrong, because they're learning from the masters, if I can say that. They're not learning from the teachers. They're not learning from the contributing members of society. Those individuals who are supporting these kids should be punished, because they're the ones who are probably doing more damage to our community than the kids themselves.
The Chair: Thank you.
Mr. Downey: Madam Chair, Specifically to Mr. Ramsay's question, if you look on page 2 under the grandparents' advice, 7(a) and (b), there are two very specific suggestions. One is to change the youth centres back to reform schools with strict discipline, or call them what you will. In (b), the grandparents who have been the victims of this and whose grandson has been hurt for life are suggesting that those who are not recidivists should be put in less strict schools, but the violent, recidivistic street gang members ought to be placed in something called a reform school, which is going back in history.
If I may, Madam Chair, there's one other point I'd like to make to all members of this committee. We're citizens who have a common bond as victims of violence. We did not make this act. We are your customers, so to speak. We are the users. We've received the benefits and the lack of benefits, and it would be my hope that the members of the committee would ask certain people on my committee here what it's like to become a victim.
You will not meet many people like Tracy, at the end of the table. You ought to hear her story. It's through stories like this that your users are trying to tell you what has to be changed, improved or strengthened in the act.
Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you.
Mr. Maloney, ten minutes.
Mr. Maloney (Erie): Mr. Prystanski, in your presentation on page two, item one, ``Is there justice for victims'', you indicate the victims of violence are often forgotten in the Young Offenders Act. You also say there are ways to lessen these effects while at the same time letting the healing process begin for the victims. Could you tell me what ways you were referring to?
Mr. Prystanski: Our experience has shown that the victims know nothing about when when the criminals go to court unless they do some painstaking research. They have to painstakingly research when the kids go to court and what their sentences are.
.1040
Often in court these kids are verbally or at least physically, through their body actions, re-threatening the victims of violence. We can't allow that to happen. If a victim of violence goes to court to watch the sentencing or to at least see how the justice system is dealing with it, these kids will make very negative and derogatory physical and verbal statements to them. That's not right.
When these kids commit a crime against a victim, how many times does the victim get restitution from the criminal? Granted there are crimes for which you cannot have restitution of the aggressor to the victim, but there are many times when you can. For example, how many kids are in the system who have stolen 20, 30 or 40 cars, and when they go to court, nothing happens to them? No contact is made by the aggressor to the victim to either say he's sorry or get that aggressor to pay back the victim and develop that link.
A lot of times the aggressor doesn't realize the negative effect he's having on the victim. The aggressor is playing out his role with his peers. He is working to make himself feel better at the expense of someone else.
Mr. Maloney: Does anyone else care to comment on that? Ms Frey.
Ms Frey: I have to agree with John.
Some of these kids will even threaten you with phone calls. They will have another boy who's going out of the Manitoba Youth Centre go to the school where your son is and say to your son ``I have a message to you from so-and-so, who I just finished seeing in the Manitoba Youth Centre. He told me `One bullet for you and one bullet for your mother when I get out'.''
When you're being threatened like this, even in court....
I have had occasion to be at a murder trial, and all the gang members are sitting there making eye contact with this poor victim and her family and making threatening statements to them later. It is very bad, what's going on there - extremely bad.
Something definitely has to be done. I'm speaking from my heart. When you have boys and girls who are so vicious, so vicious, that nothing matters to them....
Nothing matters to them. I have articles here, and this is nothing compared to what the police have. This is a pen; it's a knife. These kids don't care. They don't care. That's why I am pleading with you to try to change the Young Offenders Act to help at least the victims, because there's nothing much there for the victims, nothing. I'm imploring and asking you to try to see the victim's point of view.
Tracy has something to say. I think you should say something, Tracy.
Ms Tracy Walsh (Citizens Against Violence): I'm speaking as a victim. It happened to me almost 17 years ago. It was not by a young offender, but I know what it's like to be a victim in the court system and the court process.
I spent 15 and a half years trying to put my perpetrator away. I suffer from psychological and emotional problems. I'm unable to work. I suffer medical problems. I suffer a great deal due to the crime that was committed against me many years ago.
With the young offenders, when they're doing crimes at such a young age, there really have to be changes, such as lowering the age and so on and so forth.
.1045
Bev's son was brutally beaten. It lasts with you forever. It just doesn't go away. It's with you for life. When you are a victim, you are a victim for life. We are the ones who are given a life sentence for a crime we didn't commit.
So I'm saying changes really need to be made, because victims suffer in very many ways.
Mr. Maloney: We've heard from other delegations that offender-victim mediation often has a positive effect on the offender as well as a therapeutic effect on the victim. What do you think of that idea?
Ms Frey: I really don't think so, and I don't think so in Tracy's case either.
When you have a father of one of the boys who beat my son saying to their kids that they can do anything they want but just don't get caught, I don't want to meet this man. I don't want to talk to this man, because to me he's not a parent. They really did damage to my son's face. My son's eye will never be the same again - never.
There are people in my group whose sons are dead. There are children who have been maimed for life; there are paraplegics. These mothers, fathers and grandparents are going through hell. They are very angry about what is going on in the cities.
I do not want to sit and talk to the people who did this to my son.
I don't know if you want to talk to your perpetrator, Tracy.
Ms Walsh: No, not at all.
Mr. Maloney: Mr. Prystanski, we heard an interesting idea yesterday, that governments at all levels, federal, provincial and municipal, should be involved in this war on youth crime. Is there a political will in the city of Winnipeg to undertake or continue to fund programs that would go into the rehabilitative and preventative aspects that Mr. Ramsay has suggested?
Mr. Prystanski: I would say yes, there is. When we look at some of the problems that are currently facing the city, as in any municipality, budget cutbacks and deficits that have to be looked after, we're doing more with less. Yet within our city, our number one priority is to ensure that we fund our police force to make sure the citizens are safe, and number two is to provide also programming activities for youth to be involved in and participate in. So on the one hand we have the heavy hammer and on the other a positive option for these kids to participate.
There is a commitment, and we are more than willing to work with this committee to bring whatever programs or thoughts that could happen to our floor and get them passed successfully, whether they be existing or trial programs.
Mr. Maloney: When you first responded, you indicated the problem with victims knowing when court dates are, and remands, and so on. Is this handled by the police in your jurisdiction, or is it handled by the crown's office? Is there a role here for the police to keep the victims better informed as to court situations?
Mr. Prystanski: We have victims services in the city of Winnipeg. They try to help and deal with the victims on an ongoing basis. From keeping the victims more informed in terms of their aggressors' actions, I don't want to say it's any one particular department's responsibility, but the information should be more readily available to all that participate.
For example, it should become standard practice within the justice system that when an aggressor commits a crime, the victim is notified. In my opinion, that should come through the justice system. They are the ones who deal with the setting of court dates. They are the ones, in a lot of cases, who fund the lawyers who are representing the aggressors. They are the ones who quite often are knowledgeable of where people are in the system.
Ms Walsh: I know from first-hand experience, whether it be the youth court or the adult court, that victims are merely used as witnesses. I spent fifteen and a half years in the adult system, and I was nothing but a mere witness, only to be called upon when I was needed.
.1050
I was told that it was not my case, that it had nothing to do with me, although I was beaten, raped, and left to die in a ditch. There's a not a lot of communication from the crown, police, or sometimes from the victim or witness. Sometimes I wouldn't hear about court dates or appeals until the day before they were happening.
So I think there's really a lack of communication on their part as far as keeping the victims informed. They don't even tell you about plea-bargaining or anything like that. They just go ahead and do it. You're just a mere witness.
The Chair: I just want to clear up a couple of things. There is some information in your brief that I'm either not clear about or on which we've seen evidence that would contradict it.
On page 1 you're saying that at the time the charges are to be laid, the police should be given a more significant role: ``Why leave them out and use only lawyers?'' It's my impression that it is the police across Canada who lay charges, not the crown or lawyers. What does this mean?
Ms Frey: Yes, the police lay charges. I'm saying that when charges are laid, the police, to me, should be more influential in talking to these kids, rather than bringing in the legal aid lawyers right away and saying what they're supposed to do. I think the police could handle it a lot better by being on the front lines and knowing these kids and what they are doing. They can ask them what the hell they're doing there or why they did such a stupid thing. I think they would be more effective than by bringing in the lawyers right away and going through that whole lawyer-client thing immediately. I think that's what's happening.
The Chair: On page 2 in paragraph 7(a) is something you've highlighted:
- a) Change the Youth centres back into Reform Schools with strict discipline. There should be
no choice as to working, work assignments...
Ms Frey: We just had a court date a few weeks ago with one particular individual. He had applied for early review. Before the year was out, he had killed a person. I don't know how many months he got originally for this particular incident, but he had applied for early review. All of a sudden, it came up that we were supposed to go to court because he was going to be in for an early review. He wanted to be out on open custody to do what he wanted to do.
We had to go to court three times, I believe, for this particular individual to make sure that he stayed in the Manitoba Youth Centre. He didn't go to his drug and alcohol program. He only went when he felt like it. I believe he had kitchen duties sometimes. It's all volunteer, not mandatory.
As far as I'm concerned, if you have a drug or alcohol problem and you've murdered somebody, then you should be in the drug and alcohol program every single day without fail for the next two years. That's how I feel about these kids.
The Chair: From what we observed and were told at the Manitoba Youth Centre.... I'm just trying to clarify this because I'm concerned. You don't want to have inaccurate information, nor do we. I think it would give you a level of comfort if what we saw is accurate. You should take some comfort from what we saw. We were told very clearly that there are no alternatives if you're put in a drug treatment or alcohol treatment program: you must attend it. The young offenders who were in there and we interviewed told us in fact that was the case: you can't cruise through as you can in an adult system, where if you want just to sit in your room you can sit in your room.
.1055
Somebody's information is wrong here. One side or the other is wrong in the information they are giving. I can assure you I don't think anybody around this table saw it much stricter on this tour.
The other thing I wanted to ask about was on page 3, where you say it's obvious a child under twelve who has done these terrible crimes needs immediate psychological help and you cite this as a reason for us to lower the age. I can't remember where I read it this morning - was it in the Sun - but the director of the children's aid was interviewed. Yesterday we were asking where the child welfare authorities were in this. You may not be aware that in the province of Manitoba, unlike the province of Ontario, the province of Quebec, and other areas of the country, there are sections of the child welfare legislation which allow the provincial government, or the children's aid society or whatever it's called in any given jurisdiction, to intervene based on the behaviour of a child who, if he were old enough to be charged, could be said to be criminal. But that's not the case in the province of Manitoba.
It's here in the Sun:
- Keith Cooper, chief executive officer at CFS, said criminal youngsters can only be taken from
their homes and given treatment if they are in need of protection.
Ms Anita Abbott (Program Committee Chairperson, Citizens Against Violence): I think they have the opportunity to intervene, but they make the choice not to intervene when they should be intervening.
I personally have a stepson who is thirteen. We have been fighting tooth and nail with his mother, and with the school system and everything else, to get him the help he needs. He's having problems and having difficulties and we don't want him falling through the cracks into the system. We're fighting tooth and nail to get any help. Then they want to charge parents for not being there for their children.
If there is something in the legislation, I sure don't know about it. Nobody has said anything to me.
The Chair: There is legislation in Manitoba, but the legislation in Manitoba doesn't specifically allow the children's aid or whatever it is to intervene based on criminal behaviour. I'm suggesting that's something you should know, that's all.
Mr. Downey: May I ask you a few questions?
The Chair: Sure.
Mr. Downey: For one thing, I have a bunch of revisions here from 1994-95. That impressed me. It means the committee here and committees before you have looked at the act and they've changed it and there's an ongoing process. I'll look forward to the 1996 revisions. But if you take a look at page 3, where one of the grandparents is talking, they say penalties should be advertised in the media for a full year before the law is put in place.
That sounds to me like a good idea. It's a deterrent psychology, I admit it. Whatever penalties there are should be advertised on a regular basis in the paper to get the advantage of the deterrent. But they have to be clearly stated. For example, what does this mean: ``Offenders should be accountable to their victims and to the public through non-custodial dispositions, where appropriate''. That's your language, not mine. I don't know what that means.
The Chair: Let me assist you on two counts. First of all, during the election campaign there was some commitment by the party that became the government to make some immediate changes to the Young Offenders Act they had identified. Those were the amendments that came into force in 1994. That was done almost immediately.
.1100
At the same time, there was a campaign promise, which we're now fulfilling as a government, to review to entire act. That's what this process is. That job was delegated to the justice committee. So that's what we're doing now.
Mr. Downey: Does that mean victims can sue the perpetrator?
The Chair: I'm just explaining the first part.
The second part you're talking about is a statement of principle in the Young Offenders Act. The Young Offenders Act was drafted in 1982 and came into force in 1984.
I'm just being corrected here. The amendments we made to the Young Offenders Act were done in December 1995.
At any rate, the Young Offenders Act was designed to make young people more accountable. Under the old system, the Juvenile Delinquents Act, it was a more paternalistic type of thing. There was a feeling that we had to make young people face up to what they had done. That was the purpose of the Young Offenders Act. The public was never as widely educated about that as they should have been.
Having said that, there was also an attempt to deal with first-time young people who are coming into the system by making them accountable through alternative measures programs instead of sending them immediately to jail. So the kind of thing you're talking about, where you have non-violent offences and that sort of thing: that's what that refers to, allowing kids to operate in the community to face the people they've hurt, as Mr. Prystanski suggested, so that they can understand how they've hurt them. I think that's what that refers to. It's part of the philosophy of the act.
I want to thank you for being here. We'll adjourn now for a few minutes so that our next witnesses can get in place.
Thank you very much.
.1102
.1112
The Chair: Could we have our next witness at the table, please?
We're back, with the Society for the Restoration of the Lash, the Work-House, and Capital Punishment. This is, I believe, Mr. Caulfield. Is that correct?
Mr. Joseph N. Caulfield (Spokesman, Society for the Restoration of the Lash, the Work-House, and Capital Punishment): Yes.
The Chair: He says he's the spokesman for this group.
Do you have a presentation, Mr. Caulfield, or do you just want to take questions?
Mr. Caulfield: I do have a presentation.
The Chair: All right, go ahead.
Mr. Caulfield: I'll begin with one word. If you remember this one word, it will prevent all the crime and all the social problems we have in society today. That one word for you to remember is ``work'', w-o-r-k. Only work works to prevent social problems, family disorganization and breakdown.
A study was done by the government of Germany some years ago. It was replicated in part by the Canadian government. The study proved without any doubt that a society that has idleness has social problems. If a society will create work and jobs for the unemployed so there's no idleness, there will be little or no social problems compared to the society that just lets people go free to be idle.
For instance, Roosevelt came into office as President of the United States during the Great Depression. There couldn't have been more social problems in the United States or in the western world than there were when Roosevelt took over. He brought in what was called the WPA, the Works Progress Administration.
I'm an immigrant. I was born and raised in Seattle, Washington. I can go to a place in Seattle called Woodland Park, look in the grass and see a one-foot-square plaque that says ``WPA 1933''.
My cousin, who's now retired from being a newspaper editor with the Seattle Times and an author, was unemployed when he was a young man. He was on the WPA. Now the family is proud of the work he did during that time of unemployment and idleness, because he wasn't idle. He was creating part of that beautiful park for the city of Seattle, which is in use to this day.
.1115
Only work gives self-respect. You can't get self-respect from seeing your psychologist, social worker or psychiatrist. You get it from your work. Idleness, lack of work, breeds alcoholism, drug abuse and trafficking, crime, mental illness, sickness, fighting and divorce. The best therapy is work.
Many provincial work projects could be created in Manitoba and all the provinces of Canada for janitor and maintenance aids, teacher and social work aids and tutors. We have people on welfare who have college degrees. They could be teacher aids. They could be assisting in many ways, but still they're sitting on welfare. We are wasting valuable resources.
We know that when the mentally handicapped go out each day to work in a supervised setting, they are much more healthy, and their families are more healthy, than if they were sitting at home idle. The same applies to the unskilled and uneducated, whatever level they are at, even the level of mental retardation. People should be provided work.
You members of the House of Commons are the parents of our country. You are in the position of being the father or mother of this nation. You create the laws we live under. If any parent sees that his child is idle and mischievous and getting into trouble, doesn't that responsible parent say ``Jimmy, I have a job for you to do''? He doesn't allow his child to be idle.
We are not children. We are adults here. Most Canadians are adults. But when we have adults who are idle, the government should not give them free money. Free money degrades human beings. They should be given work - workfare, not welfare.
Parents who are financially able, which means they're not on welfare themselves, should be supporting their children up to age 30. The state, the government, should not be providing them with free money.
The Salvation Army and the Hutterites could be possible resources to provide work for many people who are presently on welfare.
Speaking of welfare, there is a group that we historically used to call the deserving poor, versus the undeserving poor, which would be alcoholics, drug users, drug sellers and hookers - those who, either because of economic circumstances or personal choices, are pushed into the life of crime or onto the thin ice leading to crime.
We could do more to help the deserving poor if we chose to. We could do more to help the undeserving poor if we chose that. The solution is, of course, work.
Right now idleness is breeding more and more sniffing and fetal alcohol syndrome. One of our major growth industries is the human behaviour scientists - the psychiatrists, psychologists and social workers. These people have their place, but in society in the past we got along without them, and sometimes we had a better society.
.1120
So have psychology and all of the human behaviour sciences really solved our problems? I doubt it. What it has solved is their own personal economic problems because they have a free ride on a gravy train for a very high salary at a comfortable job, and nobody ever looks to see if the work they are doing is achieving any positive results, to see how many are being rehabilitated in the prisons or how many are coming back.
One of our biggest growth industries in the native community is the foster care, foster home group homes. In Manitoba none of these native children who are legally free for adoption are being adopted, because the native community doesn't have enough homes for them. They can hardly handle the children they have now. It is not good for any child to be in a group home or in a foster home endlessly. It creates psychopathic, criminal personalities.
When I was a social worker in the British Columbia penitentiary in 1967, over 90% of the incoming inmates came from a series of unhappy foster homes. As long as children are bumped from home to home and never have caring, stable, secure parents, we're going to have more crime.
As it is presently operating, our foster care system is in effect a neglectful mother. A proper mother would not allow her child to be bumped from home to home, to go from five to 25 different foster homes in a lifetime.
We have unused resources in our community that could be used to prevent crime. In Winnipeg's inner city - and in most inner cities - there are public schools that have good gymnasiums and shops. Boys and girls love to go to the gymnasiums and the shops, but in Winnipeg they can't because the school district doesn't wish to risk the damage to the tools in the shops or to the gyms by having these people from the community come in. They won't trust the recreation people to handle it. It's their property, and they protect it. Therefore the kids don't have their recreation or the shops that would keep them from getting into trouble, but they're sitting right in front of them every evening. These shops should become community shops, open every evening and in the mornings.
Some of our schools in Winnipeg have free lunches. We should also experiment with free suppers. We have to accept the fact that we have a population in the inner city that is neglectful and try to do as much as we can to help their children.
We need a curfew in the core area of all of our cities. I was driving a cab this summer. Three young girls got in my cab. They looked to be 12 years to 14 years old. They told me where they wanted to go. They were looking for boys at 3 a.m. The youngest one said to me, ``I'm only 10.'' And what kinds of boys did they find? They found boys who were in their teens and twenties. And where do our unexpected pregnancies come from? Guess. Until we get a core area curfew for our major cities, we're only going to have increasing crime.
When I first came to Winnipeg in 1969 I began working in the core area as a social worker. I've worked in the core area of Winnipeg since 1969.
.1125
We have a large public housing complex called the Lord Selkirk housing development. Some of the social workers raised honest questions, like what we were going to do about the hookers. The senior social workers told them not to worry about the hookers, it wasn't a social work problem; it was a police problem and they had to give the police time. The hookers are still there now, 20, 25, and 30 years later. Our new police chief may be able to solve it, but I'll tell you this: the underage hookers are no longer standing at their usual corner; they've moved, and I can tell you where they've moved to. I don't know how long it's going to take the detectives to find out, but they were still there as of last week.
Why are we allowing hookers around our largest public housing development, the Lord Selkirk housing development, which has the most neglectful single-parent population of families and young children in our city? The teachers say they can sometimes see the hookers out there during the day through the school windows. Any cab driver or any policeman can see them out there almost every night. It has been changed during the last week or two, but how long it will last only God knows.
We've had this going on for 20 to 30 years. Hooking is condoned in family neighbourhoods as long as they're poor. It would never happen in Tuxedo Park. The city councillors of Winnipeg will never enforce a curfew because they don't want a curfew for their good kids in Tuxedo who don't need it. We just need it in the core area, but they won't give us one because they don't care enough.
There are in our jails, sadly, some people who are disabled, who are illiterate, who don't know really what's happening. Our jails should be turned into places of teaching. I spent two months a couple of summers ago in Headingly Correctional Institution, where there was a volunteer teacher, a young lady of about 25, from the John Howard Society. She was teaching reading, but she had never taken a class in teaching reading. She was doing her best, but she was failing to do the job. She had such a good personality, though, that she did a good job just because she was there. The men very much appreciated her. However, we need to have people who have been trained in the teaching of reading there, people who know how to teach phonetics. Why can't Johnny read? It's because he didn't take to sight-reading. Not all students do. Okay, so teach him by phonetics and he'll learn if he didn't get it by sight-reading. If we had competent teachers in our institutions, in our jails, we'd have much more rehabilitation.
We should publish names of offenders of all offences, maybe not at the first time, but especially at the second offence. And violent offenders should be treated differently than non-violent offenders. Violent offenders should have their names published the first time. We need to bring back to the home the honouring of reasonable spanking. We need to bring back to the school the honouring of reasonable corporal punishment.
When I was a shop teacher I would give the boys a choice: they could have one, two or three swats in the paint room after they told me what kind of wood they chose to be swatted with, or they could go visit the vice-principal. It was their choice. They always chose one, two or three swats over ever going to see the vice-principal. We didn't have school social workers and psychologists in those days, we just had vice-principals, and I thank God now that we didn't have them all, because things have gone from bad to worse with more psychology and social work in some schools. They're chaos. I've been a substitute teacher long enough in schools in Winnipeg's core area to know.
.1130
In jail, the first time a man comes in on a violent offence he should receive 7, 14 or 21 lashes every two weeks. It should be pay day for his crime. If Clifford Olson had received those lashings when he went to jail for the first time, he might be a free man today and his victims might be living people today. But our justice system is so soft, there's no real punishment. There's no pain. Without pain, there's no gain. If we want to reform people and to motivate them to change, we're going to have to bring a level of acceptable pain. We'll have to consider experimenting in institutions that are willing to experiment with the lash, the workhouse and capital punishment.
The Chair: Excuse me, will you be speaking much longer or will you be giving the committee -
Mr. Caulfield: When is my time up?
The Chair: It's up when I say it's up. I'm just wondering if you're going to go much longer. If you could give -
Mr. Caulfield: I thought I had about twenty minutes.
The Chair: You've been speaking for half an hour, sir, and there may be members -
Mr. Caulfield: Okay, I'll sum it up.
The Chair: Thanks.
Mr. Caulfield: Thank you.
There needs to be a return to what our grandparents knew as punishment that included pain. In the prisons, the ones that will experiment with it.... It has to be done on experimental purposes because it goes against all the professions that have a vested interest in staying where they are because of their salaries. If they experimented and found that the lash, the workhouse and capital punishment worked and they were without a job, would they vote for that? Of course not.
By ``workhouse'', we mean that every jail should have eight to twelve hours of hard labour, six days a week. If they knew they were going to get lashes every two weeks every time they went to jail, and six days' worth of work a week, would they want to go back? No, a lot of them wouldn't go back at all. Right now, the jail is a grand hotel.
Thank you.
The Chair: Are there any questions? Mr. Nunez.
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: Thank you for your presentation. I have to tell you right off the bat that I don't share your recommendations about the hard line. I come from Chile, where there was a dictatorship and where the military used pretty much the methods and means you are advocating today, for example curfews and capital punishment. It was a very dark period in our history. There have been assassinations, disappearances and human rights violations by the state, by the people in power.
I don't think the methods you are proposing today are appropriate in a democratic society like Canada. Do you know of any country in the world where there is a curfew in large cities? Have you ever lived outside of Canada or the United States? Do you know of any city, in a democratic society - not in a dictatorship - where there is a curfew? That's my first question.
[English]
The Chair: Excuse me. Just a minute, Mr. Caulfield. Who is the person who has joined you?
Mr. Caulfield: He is a co-presenter. I can't pronounce Rufus' last name. Can you pronounce your last name for her, Rufus?
Mr. Olufemi Ilelaboye (Co-Chairman, Christian Counselling Services Inc.): Ilelaboye.
.1135
The Chair: Mr. Caulfield, we have some order here. We have refused some people because we didn't have time. We've given you an hour, and I don't appreciate having extra witnesses added.
Mr. Caulfield: He's not added. He just came late. He was originally on our list.
The Chair: He's not on our list.
Mr. Caulfield: He was on the list I gave over the telephone.
The Chair: Well, he's not on our list.
That's fine. Go ahead, Mr. Ilelaboye.
Mr. Caulfield: Do you know where curfews are going on in the world today? Tell us about the curfew in Nigeria.
Mr. Ilelaboye: Good morning. I'm sorry I was late. I was tied up in a meeting.
The Chair: I think what Mr. Nunez would like is a list of democratic countries, where there's parliamentary or republican democracy, that have curfews. I don't think we're really interested in knowing about Nigeria.
Mr. Caulfield: Does Nigeria have a democratic society?
Mr. Ilelaboye: Paramilitary.
The Chair: It's a military dictatorship.
Mr. Caulfield: I happen to be aware that there's a curfew in Minneapolis, and in about ten cities in the United States, but none yet in Canada.
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: I didn't know about that example in the United States. It is a very democratic country.
However, you have mentioned something important concerning work. I do think that unemployment is an important reason for the crime rate. It is a problem in Canada. And poverty often leads to crime. We must take social and family problems at the roots, and that will solve part of the crime problem at the same time.
There are also other factors like intolerance and racism against certain groups in our society. For example, in some Canadian cities, when black people are discriminated against by white people, they react and are pushed to crime. What is, in your opinion, the role played by the intolerance and racism which exist in some Canadian cities and which is unfortunately rising steeply?
[English]
Mr. Caulfield: Can you tell them about racism in Canada?
Mr. Ilelaboye: I will start by telling you about what happened when I came into this country in 1975. I got a job with Corrections Canada in Regina. I was hired as a guard. One of the frustrating things for me with the legal system when I got in here was the fact that....
I don't know if any of you are familiar with the case of the two fellows who shot a farmer in 1975. These guys were actually put into solitary confinement, and I was in charge of them.
At that time, I guess because I wasn't too familiar with how the system works legally here, I ran into a problem with these two fellows. During their breakfast one of the inmates actually poured hot coffee on me. I got really furious about this. The prison superintendent at that time said I was supposed to be the responsible person, and I should be taking the abuse.
This actually went all the way to the then justice minister, because I wasn't ready to take it. The RCMP came, and rather than their doing something about these fellows, it was the innocent party - and I considered this to be me at the time - who was actually punished for this. I had to quit. Literally, I just took my jacket and walked away because I couldn't really take the abuses in the prisons.
.1140
At that time I told them I wasn't a prisoner, I was the innocent one and they should realize that. From that time on I've taken quite a bit of interest in the justice and legal system and the way prisoners are actually treated in this country.
Eventually I ended up in Winnipeg and got into the cab business. Right now, I'm the assistant manager of one of the cab companies here in the city. I've seen a great amount of violence in the last seven years. Three of our drivers have been killed and many others have been physically assaulted.
I was also a victim of one of these youth gangs. I had my head smashed and seven stitches to the head. Eventually when all of this went to court the only response I got was that they were given suspended sentences simply because they were youths. I was told there was certainly not much the court could do about it.
My car was completely damaged and I had to pay for it out of my own pocket. There was no recourse for me to be compensated financially for my loss in terms of property or suffering.
I think it's a little bit frustrating when you see this. Most of the time you let it go, but it goes on and on every day in my industry. This is my chosen profession. I work very hard for my living and have been a good citizen, so something will have to be done about the youth gangs, in particular, in this town.
It's up to the eminent people like you to actually sit down and see that these changes are implemented and the innocent people are not targets. This is why I'm here today.
The Chairman: Mr. Nunez.
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: Our committee is examining three main issues: youth crime, the youth justice system and the Young Offenders Act. Except for the hard line that you are advocating, except for drastic measures like lashings, corporal punishment, pain, capital punishment and forced labour, do you wish to recommend any specific changes to the act or to the justice system that we are examining here? As you know, capital punishment is another issue, as is forced labour.
[English]
Mr. Caulfield: I agree with the speaker yesterday who said he didn't want to impose an age limit. It should go down on the basis of the crime.
If the young offender is able to do the crime of capital murder, then that young offender should be held to be guilty and receive a penalty of capital punishment, even if the child is 12, 11 or 10. Unless we get serious, we will only see crime getting worse. Beyond that, we have to do away with the vested interest and the barriers.
For instance, we call the weakest families in society multi-problem families. The helpers are half the problem because a multi-problem family has a probation worker coming into the home because the child is on probation. It has a child and family services worker because the rest of the children are being looked after. It has the welfare department paying the rent. It has the school nurse and God knows how many other helpers coming and going. But there's not one person to organize and say this family should go in this direction. Instead, they are pulled in many different directions because different councillors have different philosophies, different methods and different approaches.
We should end the bureaucratic building of agencies. If a family's prime problem is corrections and law, let the prime social worker be the probation officer and let the probation officer be fully trained. He or she should have a master's degree or at least a bachelor's degree in social work. All the other helpers should be kept out of the kitchen, because too many helpers spoil the soup and confuse the client.
.1145
Mr. Nunez: Thank you.
The Chair: Mr. Ramsay, do you have any questions?
Mr. Ramsay: Yes, just a couple, Madam Chair.
Just to touch on the principle of curfews, we used to have them in Canada. I was recently talking to the mayor of Coronation, which is a town in my riding. They are bringing back an 11 p.m. curfew for children under a certain age. I was talking to Mr. Kirkby, who is an MP from Saskatchewan. He indicated, I think, that Prince Albert is considering a curfew as well. These are all attempts to deal with the prevention of youth crime. So I'm going to be watching with interest the results of the return to principles that worked.
I spent a number of years in the RCMP and we had curfews in most of the smaller towns I worked in. I don't know how a curfew would work in a city like this, but I think it's a serious attempt by those in authority, reflecting the concerns of members of their communities, to give parents, as well as the police, tools to deal with a preventative measure as far as youth crime is concerned.
I want to ask you about this business of idleness. How would you eliminate idleness?
Mr. Caulfield: We would eliminate idleness just like we do for the mentally retarded. We would provide them with a work setting and say ``This is where you punch the time clock''. Whether it's in jail or in open society, you put in your eight to twelve hours of hard labour in jail or you put in your four to six or eight hours in the community. If a woman has children who are in school, she can put in four hours as a teacher aide or a school lunch-room aide. There are lots of opportunities. So there's no excuse for idleness, because idleness is the devil's tool.
Mr. Ramsay: What do you think about workfare, then, for those who are on welfare? First of all, would you eliminate social welfare?
Mr. Caulfield: I would change social welfare and unemployment insurance completely to workfare.
Mr. Ramsay: So you would have those receiving assistance doing something for what they receive.
Mr. Caulfield: Absolutely. I would give them only three months at the most on unemployment insurance to find their own jobs. If they couldn't, there would be no welfare - only workfare would be available.
Mr. Ramsay: Okay. Are you suggesting then that the social welfare policies of the provinces and the federal government are contributing to the crime rate in Canada?
Mr. Caulfield: The whole social service industry is built in such a haphazard, unthinking, confused way that it's helping in the destruction of the people it's trying to help, sad to say.
Mr. Ramsay: But can we conclude from what you're saying that you're of the opinion that social services and the assistance being paid to adults is contributing to crime in Canada?
Mr. Caulfield: Absolutely. The families cannot survive on welfare, therefore they have to think about either unreported income, hooking, selling drugs, or using drugs.
I was born on welfare. I lived on welfare until I left high school. My mother worked and brought in as much money every month as we got on welfare. If she had been caught she would have been tossed in jail. One day a social worker came to our home and said to my mother, ``Mrs. Caulfield, I just don't understand how you do it'', meaning she done so well for our family. This woman said she was retiring, so she was going to have a new worker come to see my mother. My mother said: ``I work''. That social worker said, ``Mrs. Caulfield, if I were in your shoes, I would do exactly the same''.
.1150
In the social service system, half the social workers know that one-third to one-tenth of the clients have unreported income. The problem is when they're doing it by hooking and drug dealing. That's where it's really growing.
But the biggest problem in the whole social service area is not that, it's secret courts, family courts in the provinces. They breed injustice. No media can go there. No family can go there. They are having children taken away from them. They are having promises made to them by social workers who are breaking those promises in the family court. Nobody can hear about it; it's a secret court. I hate to compare it to this, but it's like Nazism.
The Chair: Mr. Gallaway.
Mr. Gallaway (Sarnia - Lambton): Mr. Caulfield, I take it that you're an ordained minister.
Mr. Caulfield: Yes.
Mr. Gallaway: You are a member of Calvary Temple, is that correct?
Mr. Caulfield: No, I just like that sermon from Pastor Barber; I watch him every Sunday. I'm a member of Broadway First Baptist Church.
Mr. Gallaway: Okay. You're also the father of Joe Caulfield.
Mr. Caulfield: No, that's Michael and Pammy Caulfield. My name is Joe.
Mr. Gallaway: Okay. There's an open letter to the Honourable Rosemary Vodrey concerning Headingley memories.
Mr. Caulfield: Right.
Mr. Gallaway: Is that written by you?
Mr. Caulfield: Right.
Mr. Gallaway: Were you in jail?
Mr. Caulfield: Yes.
Mr. Gallaway: Your views are on our records, so I wanted to ask you about some of the materials you passed out.
You've put on the record a number of anecdotes, including your mother's experience of being on welfare and your opinion of that. I take it then that your recommendations being made here this morning are based on your interpretation of the Bible. Is that correct?
Mr. Caulfield: That's correct.
Mr. Gallaway: Your interpretation of the Bible may not agree with other people's interpretation of the Bible. Is that a possibility?
Mr. Caulfield: Yes, there's a more liberal interpretation than mine. It's because the liberal society has converted most of the churches; the churches haven't converted society.
Mr. Gallaway: In fact you talk about delivering us from evil. Your way of getting there and dealing with society is strictly then in accordance with your particular interpretation of the Bible?
Mr. Caulfield: Well, what can you say regarding work? The Bible says that if a man doesn't work, he shouldn't eat.
Mr. Gallaway: That's the way you read it. Okay.
You also endorse in your literature - I'm assuming it's your literature - a particular political party. Is that correct?
Mr. Caulfield: We have to think about which political party is probably the closest to the Judeo-Christian tradition, which in my opinion is stated there. I think that principle applies to all political parties. They should be as close as possible to the tradition of all the religions of the world, which are saying the same thing regarding the family and justice.
Mr. Gallaway: That's interesting. Yesterday we had two United Church ministers here who had a startlingly different view of the world of Manitoba and the Young Offenders Act than you do. How do you reconcile that?
Mr. Caulfield: The average United Church minister is a very good person who has a very liberal view in comparison to the average evangelical minister's view of the Bible. It's very simple. I understand the liberal view. I agree that the liberal philosophy in society and theology is wonderful, but it just doesn't work.
Mr. Gallaway: When you were in jail - I'm looking at this open letter - you wrote a letter to the Attorney General. You seem to explain away the fact that you were found guilty of buying and selling babies. I'm not certain if there's a charge in the Criminal Code; I don't know what that is called. But you really don't show any remorse for this criminal act. Were you guilty of a criminal act, in your opinion?
Mr. Caulfield: Yes, I was guilty of a criminal act. I was found guilty. I spent two months in Headingley Correctional Institution.
Mr. Gallaway: Do you feel any remorse for that?
.1155
Mr. Caulfield: Absolutely not. Right now, they're changing the Child Welfare Act to hopefully make what I did no longer illegal. It's not illegal in Alberta, British Columbia, or California.
It shouldn't be illegal here to give a woman a bus pass each month during her pregnancy or to pay for her telephone, which welfare doesn't pay for. Welfare doesn't pay for a bus pass or give her $100 when she moves. Welfare doesn't give her moving costs. So I gave her the money she needed for herself and her two pre-school kids, which was $462. The judge ruled that because of the bias at that time of some of the family lawyers, this was buying and selling her baby. I argued that babies sell for $10,000 and up, but the judge said it wasn't a matter of money; it was a matter of giving her anything.
I introduced her to the couple she wanted for adopting her baby. They were a Lutheran couple like herself. So she's happy. The baby's happy. Everybody's happy. I got a good experience in a jail, so I'm happy. I had a good holiday there.
Mr. Gallaway: In other words, you have broken the law because you were found guilty of -
Mr. Caulfield: That's right, I did.
Mr. Gallaway: You feel that because of your interpretation of either the law or the Bible, you did nothing wrong. Is that correct?
Mr. Caulfield: That's how laws change sometimes: they're broken.
Mr. Gallaway: Okay. Thank you. Those are all my questions.
The Chair: I was reading some of your literature, which I find shocking. In particular, I just can't sit here and not object to the use in public or in private of the word ``shyster''.
Mr. Caulfield: I can tell you that worse language is being used.
The Chair: Yes. I'm going to assume that you're simply ignorant -
Mr. Caulfield: I probably am.
The Chair: - of the meaning of the word.
Mr. Caulfield: I don't know the meaning of the word.
The Chair: The word is anti-Semitic.
Mr. Caulfield: I didn't realize that.
The Chair: It is offensive. When it is used in relation to a prominent Jewish citizen in this city, it is even more offensive. You may wish to correct your material.
Mr. Caulfield: I apologize. I will correct that. I never intend to be anti-Semitic. I honour Moses and all the people who come from that tradition. I consider myself to be a Jew who simply has a different messianic view than the average Jew. I consider all Christians to be Jews.
The Chair: Does the Department of Social Services endorse your advertisement? Did they place this advertisement with you, or did you simply copy it out of a newspaper?
Mr. Caulfield: I simply copied it. It's in the public domain.
The Chair: I see. Did they know you're using it in one of -
Mr. Caulfield: Oh, sure. I've circulated it to them over the years. Of course they know.
The Chair: Do you have their permission to use this ad in your -
Mr. Caulfield: I never asked. It's in the public domain.
The Chair: Have they ever objected to it?
Mr. Caulfield: Never.
The Chair: Thank you.
Mr. Caulfield: I think I've helped them find some good foster homes, too. This is one thing we can do to help solve crime: find good foster homes where they are not doing it for the money, but for the child. There should be only two children, instead of having overcrowded foster homes.
The Chair: Thank you. That will be all.
Mr. Caulfield: Thank you all.
The Chair: We'll break until the next witnesses are ready.
.1158
.1206
The Chair: We're back and we have Marcel Harvisty. Have I pronounced your last name correctly?
Mr. Marcel Hardisty (Community Holistic Circle Healing Program): It is Hardisty.
The Chair: We have it misspelled on our docket. I'm sorry. We have Marcel Hardisty from the Community Holistic Circle Healing Program. Welcome.
Did you want to make an introductory presentation? It is helpful to us if you do.
Mr. Hardisty: Do you mean about myself?
The Chair: Yes, and it could be about your organization and the work you're doing.
Mr. Hardisty: First of all, it is an honour to be here. I bring greetings from our elders, our mothers, our grandmothers and our children. I also bring greetings from our resource people, the people who serve our community from within, and also from the outside resources. We all work together to try to create an healthy and safe community.
I'm from the Ojibway Nation, the Anishinabek, and I belong to the Beaver Clan. My traditional name is North Standing Man, Kewatinokapau, and I've been active in my community for about 20 years, starting as a young person. I've been involved in the political forum and also social and spiritual forums, so I'm pretty well known in my community. I know what is going on in my community politically and in all areas. I got involved in all areas so I could understand the issues my people have to deal with. All of the systems in place have an effect on our families. I chose to be involved in my community and start to learn about the different systems that exist on the outside so I can be a better resource person to my community. So this is who I am.
We call the work we do an approach or a process. Because most people want to use the term ``project'', we'll call it a project, but to us it is a process and an approach. We've called it CHCH - community holistic circle healing. It is a process to take ownership of the problems and to take ownership of the solutions. It comes from the Anishinabek people's philosophical view of life.
To help you understand this, I need to do a little bit of illustrating on paper. This is why I asked for a flip chart. Everything we do within the approach is to restore balance. I want to talk a little bit about this and show you on the flip chart what I mean when I talk about balance. So please give me a few minutes. I was told I have 20 minutes to do this. Usually this presentation takes between two and four hours, so I'm really going to cram a lot of information into a few minutes.
.1210
The Chair: You're not really limited. Take the time you need. The problem is we have other witnesses waiting and I'm sure my colleagues will want to ask some questions. We've got about 45 minutes or 50 minutes left. I'll stop talking so you can go ahead.
Mr. Hardisty: I'll start with the Anishinabek philosophy and where it comes from, okay?
The Chair: Okay.
Mr. Hardisty: Our elders or our grandparents tell us the story about the initial creation. We have Mother Earth, the moon and the sun. There is a sacred relationship here. Then on earth there are the mountains and the rocks, the first things created. Then there are the trees, the plant life, the birds, the four-legged creatures, the water and the air. Those were the first elements created. Then came the human being, the woman representing Mother Earth and the man representing the air. Here too is a sacred relationship.
With this creation we were given instructions about how to live in harmony with the rest of creation and how to interrelate with the rest of creation. We were given teachings. In my language there may be three or four words to describe all of this, but when I translate it I need at least seven words. So there are seven teachings; these are sharing, kindness, respect, caring, strength, humility and honesty.
These are the seven principles we need to learn in order to live in harmony with the rest of creation. Our elders teach us we are the most prized creation but we are the most dependent. Everything else will live without the human being. Plant life, animal life, air and water will exist forever and don't need this part of creation. Instead, it is the other way around. This creation is totally dependent on the rest of creation.
So we were taught that in order to exist, in order to survive, we need to practise the seven principles on how you relate to and how you use the rest of creation. They also said it is most important you practise these teachings in this relationship. If you don't follow these teachings, there is going to be chaos, there is going to be destruction, and eventually there is going to be death.
Today we see environmental concerns. Species of animal and plant life are almost extinct because these things are not practised by industry or by governments. When politicians make their policies, they don't think about these things. Now we have chaos, we have destruction, and eventually there is going to be death. There has already been death for certain species of plant life and animal life.
It was with this philosophy that we started to look at what the problems in the community were. We have a lot of dysfunctional behaviour, a lot of violence, and a lot of crime against women, against children, against young males and old males. There is a real problem of dysfunction within the community.
So these are the guiding principles of the work we do in the CHCH.
.1215
When I talk about restoring balance, as human beings we are told by our elders that every individual, every person has his or her mental being, emotional being, spiritual being, and physical being. Now we're starting to see and understand the whole colonization process and the impact of the Indian Act, the residential school system. What those systems did in effect was to destroy this part of the person, the spiritual and emotional part. We have a lot of people who are functioning at only 50%. Physically they exist and mentally we're okay. We can learn what you taught, but we couldn't live emotionally and spiritually. So in the work we do under CHCH we're restoring this understanding of our place in creation and how we are to relate to each other within the human family.
Before the disruption of the Indian Act and the residential school system, from the time we were born and before the first quarter of our lives, before we went into puberty, our elders taught us philosophy. Having that philosophy and these teachings - that's where justice is; that's where balance is; that's where we have healthy individuals, healthy families, healthy communities.
That's what we are attempting to restore in our communities, with our families: that philosophy, and helping them grow mentally, emotionally, spiritually, and physically. In order to do that, we have to work in conjunction with the systems that are in place in our society, the legal system, the justice system, people who work in social work, in the schools. We work with all we have with us, because that's why they're there. We believe institutions are set up to meet people's needs and to improve on the quality of life. That's what CHCH is all about.
We have a working relationship with Justice Manitoba. We have a protocol that deals with abuses of violence, whether sexual, verbal, or emotional violence. We have a process where we can intervene and provide treatment. We provide an alternative to incarceration.
We also have an alternative way of doing pre-sentence reports. It's a sentencing process. We believe it's the community taking responsibility for the problems and it's the community taking ownership of the solutions to the problems, with the support and with the help of all existing resources within our community and also from outside.
Until now we've been supported financially by Justice Manitoba and Justice Canada in a three-year pilot project. Currently we're negotiating to extend the financial support.
If there are any questions, I'll attempt to answer.
The Chairman: Thank you. Mr. Nunez.
.1220
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: Thank you for this very interesting presentation.
I would like you to tell us first how serious is the crime problem in native communities. This morning, witnesses have told us that here in Winnipeg, 75% of street gang members were natives. Police estimates the number of street gang members to 800, whereas some witnesses we have heard this morning say it is 2 000. Is crime in general, and youth crime in particular, a serious problem in your community?
[English]
Mr. Hardisty: I believe that is the end result. Young aboriginal people don't know who they are. The systems I talked about - the residential school system and the Indian Act - have done such a good job of convincing our people our ways are evil that our own people now have a hard time accepting the principles, the beliefs and the values of our ancestors. Yet that's what's going to ensure our survival.
Young people in Winnipeg are involved in street gangs because they don't know who they are. They don't see a positive future. In my community the young people are just as at risk of joining these gangs. A lot of their parents and grandparents believed the missionaries, who told them they had to forget their language, beliefs, values, ceremonies and rituals because they were all evil. The missionaries did such a super job of convincing our forefathers.
Today we struggle with trying to tell our young people about these good principles that I talk about, the seven teachings, and about how we can incorporate that into our lives today and be healthy and productive individuals and families and members of society.
But a lot of our people are still fearful. In every native community across Canada you'll find probably at least four different religious denominations, if not more. The very thing that's supposed to bring us together and create a healthy environment and love and caring and sharing is what is destroying us - and that's religion, politics and all of the institutions that claim to come in to do justice to our community and improve the quality of life. We see the opposite. It's a breakdown.
If we're going to tackle the violence, we have to start at home and within our communities. People have come to my community to try to recruit our biggest young men to them to be part of a gang. It's always a struggle for us to continue to convince our young people not to be involved in that sort of thing, to convince them there are better things they can do and better things they can learn about so that they have a better life.
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: Is that estimation - about 75% of youth offenders being natives - exaggerated? I think it is. You are not that numerous and you're not a majority in the population.
.1225
[English]
Mr. Hardisty: It could be exaggerated, but I've also heard from certain young native men who are inmates and tell me ``It's sad that I have to learn about who I am in jail. This is the first time I hear about these principles, these good teachings, about what it means to be Anishinabe. It's sad that I have to hear that in jail.''
In our community it is still difficult to do ceremonial things openly, to even start a powwow and have young men and young women involved in a social function that creates happiness. It's difficult to do that because the older people still frown upon that sort of thing. They still believe it's wrong. It's sad.
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: Could you give us more detail about the program you mentioned earlier for fighting against physical, sexual, verbal and emotional violence? How do you work? What is that program?
Could you also explain us what alternative measures you are proposing to replace incarceration?
[English]
Mr. Hardisty: We deal with violence and the different forms of violence by talking about it. We say ``This is what is happening and we know this is happening in this home.'' Because we're all interrelated in our community there's nothing to hide. We all know that violence is going on. It's happening openly with the corrupt activities of certain politicians in the community.
Certain people in positions of power and trust are abusing their authority. We're encouraging young people to start talking and say ``That's enough. That's not right. We have to change that.''
The more open sessions - what we call circle sessions - we have, where we talk about the pain and express the pain that comes from verbal abuse, emotional abuse or acts of manipulation and intimidation against young people and the spouses, the more people start to feel safe enough to talk about these things without fear of the people who are doing this to them.
The more we talk about these kinds of issues, the easier it becomes, and then we start to understand why we're so dysfunctional, why our systems in the community are not working, why the school system is not preparing our young people to their capacities, and why the churches and the religions are not making progress in creating good Christians.
Underneath the superficial pretence, there's a lot of pain. That has to come out before any healing can happen. Before any healthy, productive living can happen that pain has to come out. It's like a wound. You get a cut, you have a wound and then you have a scab that doesn't heal until you open up that scab and let that poison drain out. That's what's going on.
The Chair: Mr. Ramsay.
Mr. Ramsay: Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Hardisty, I want to thank you for your presentation.
.1230
I think the committee has heard over and over again much of what you have said today about the answers to our problems, that they must come from the community and the community must be empowered with not only a legal framework, but also the resources. We're not really going to get answers to our problems and we're not going to solve the problems - and in this area, youth crime - until we begin to empower the communities to take the responsibility, as you say, for correcting the problems.
I believe that. I think you're right. In fact, we have heard some about the sentencing circles, which is a principle that has emerged from the aboriginal communities. I hope to hear more. We have one more week left and we're going into B.C. and the Yukon. They are using the sentencing circle in the Yukon quite extensively, and the dynamics that are involved there, where it laid the basis for the healing not only for the victim, but also for the offender, because both are injured. Whenever there is a violent act committed or any kind of an act that causes injury, the injury is on both sides.
I support what you're saying. What I would like to know is do you have any recommendations to the committee in terms of any reforms to the Young Offenders Act that in your perspective might better suit your needs from the community level, particularly in this area of empowering the community?
Mr. Hardisty: I have a recommendation, not so much in terms of the Young Offenders Act itself, but I think what needs to be done in terms of reform is the child and family services policy.
We always have ideas about what we may do to help the young people understand their circumstances, to help them understand why they are in the mess they're in, but then we always run into problems with the child and family services agencies because they have certain policies they have to abide by. Usually their policies are from a protection perspective. It's difficult for people within these agencies to let go of their authority and their power over family issues and share that responsibility with community people. There has to be some kind of a change in that system.
In the early 1980s, when aboriginal CFS programs were being set up, the idea was to focus on restoring family values and principles. But that hasn't happened. The focus is still protection. When you operate a program with that focus, then you're looking at ways of accessing more dollars to justify and maintain your programming, and in order to do that you have to have children in care. So the funding formula has to change from how many children you have in care to how many children you're working with in preventative programming. I think CFS programs have too much authority over family issues and community issues.
Mr. Ramsay: Where would you like to see that refocused? I recognize what you're saying, that the focus is on protection, so nothing happens until there are signs that a child needs protection, and the institution closely guards their authority and their resources. For some time now I have recognized that. I also feel that is an obstacle to really getting at the cause of the problem and alleviating the cause of the problem.
.1235
You have indicated here on the flip chart that by the time the children have reached puberty, traditionally the parents have engendered within them the philosophy you've outlined here and equipped them to go forward into adolescence and adult life. It seems to me what you're saying here about focusing...we have to focus back on empowering members of the community and families to do that and not set up institutions to deal with a failure that occurs in doing that. In other words, the greatest protection the child has is teaching them proper principles. Then that will allow them to govern themselves wisely as they move into adulthood.
Am I correct in understanding that what you're saying is we must break down this whole area of focusing on the child after the signs are there that they need protection and it should go back to focusing on the need to engender within the child before they reach a certain age those principles you've described to the committee today?
Mr. Hardisty: That's right. Also, from that perspective, the child and family services department always penalizes the child. It's not the child who is at fault, it's the parent. The parent had a lack of parenting skills.
Mr. Ramsay: Could I ask you this? We've talked about the lack of parenting skills and the lack of programs designed to teach parenting. Traditionally, before European people got here, how were children within the aboriginal community taught to be good parents?
Mr. Hardisty: I need to illustrate that on the flip chart again.
We were taught that you have four quarters to your life, from the time when you are born to the first quarter. From the first quarter of your life, before puberty, much of your time was spent with your grandparents, who were already in this quarter of their lives. They had all this experience to share with a young person.
That's how I was raised. I spent most of my young life with my grandparents, because between here and here my parents were busy providing for the home. My mom was busy looking after the household needs. My dad was busy fishing and hunting, making sure there was food. So the teaching came from my grandparents.
Mr. Ramsay: I smiled when you drew that, because it is such a sound philosophy that the people best able to teach the children how to parent are the people with the greatest wisdom, the grandparents. Thank you very much for that.
The Chair: Mr. Maloney.
Mr. Maloney: I would like to refer you to the specifics of your project. How large are the four communities you serve - how many people?
Mr. Hardisty: About 1,500 people.
Mr. Maloney: You have 263 individuals on the program; 69 are victims, 48 are victimizers. Who are the others?
.1240
Mr. Hardisty: Those are extended family members. Everybody feels the pain of the victimization. The offender part of the family and the victim part of the family all suffer.
Mr. Maloney: Of the 48 victimizers, have they reoffended since they entered the program? Have they committed other crimes or other offences?
Mr. Hardisty: There was one who reoffended.
Mr. Maloney: One out of the 48 over three years?
Mr. Hardisty: Yes.
Mr. Maloney: Do you think this could be operated in an urban setting?
Mr. Hardisty: Yes, I think it can be.
Mr. Maloney: You say in the brief that the approach in practice provides a broad range of services. Could you describe those broad range of services that are part of the program?
Mr. Hardisty: There are individual conflict sessions. There's group work for young people, boys and girls. There's group work for young men and women. There's group work for elderly men. There's group support, self-help groups, in which people share their pain, knowledge and experience.
Mr. Maloney: Is this on a daily basis?
Mr. Hardisty: Once a week.
Mr. Maloney: How many hours a week?
Mr. Hardisty: Some of the offenders who have been in treatment have been there for the required time as delegated by the court, which is three years, and they're still there. Some have finished the three years, but they still come for ongoing support.
Mr. Maloney: But how many hours a week would it be? If it's once a week, is it for a couple of hours?
Mr. Hardisty: Yes, two hours a night. Sometimes it goes for four hours.
Mr. Maloney: Is there any other contact other than that during the week?
Mr. Hardisty: Yes, there are community members. They're always interested.
Mr. Maloney: How could that be applied to the urban setting, where there are so many temptations?
Mr. Hardisty: Every individual has people they know, right? Then there are people who are put into positions of responsibility from the legal system, social system, or the religious system. Every person is connected to the system in some way or form. So people know about it. It's a matter of being accountable, being willing to take the risk and confront people when they're out of line.
Mr. Maloney: Have there been any discussions about applying this project system into urban areas?
Mr. Hardisty: We have always been asked whether it can work somewhere else, such as the cities or urban areas. We have said that if it works in our community, why not? I don't see what the problem would be. The problems are the same all across our nation. No race is immune to these kinds of abuses and pain. There's got to be a way to make it work. But there's got to be certainly the political will.
In our community it got started because children started to feel strong and safe enough, especially the women who support the children. It was okay to talk about what was going on. Before we started this work, it was a dirty word to talk about AA or alcohol abuse. It was difficult to say those words. Now we're saying words like sexual abuse and incest. It's no longer so scary because we know our community is going to get better. We know our individuals and families are going to get better, and they'll become more healthy and more productive citizens.
Mr. Maloney: You play a lead role. How many others are involved with your group who would play a lead role?
Mr. Hardisty: I'm used as the voice. I've supported our women and our children all these years. There are about 24 strong, key people who want this to happen, and the elders.
Mr. Maloney: Okay.
Mr. Hardisty: You see, in my generation we're lucky because the hold by government, the church, and school officials is not too strong. I have the opportunity to change things around, within my generation. In my dad's generation and my grandparents' generation the hold by the church and officials of the Indian agent was so strong that they couldn't do anything.
.1245
Mr. Maloney: Are you accountable to any officials with the Department of Justice? Do you have to report to anybody?
Mr. Hardisty: Yes, we're evaluated. We've been evaluated to death - I don't know how often - in the last ten years.
Mr. Maloney: But on a regular basis, do the police say how you're doing?
Mr. Hardisty: Yes, we work with the police and the people in the justice system. They ask continuously. The crown prosecutors ask how things are going. We work closely with the justice people, crown prosecutors, and defence lawyers. That's where we have the most trouble, with defence lawyers. The first thing they tell their clients is don't say anything - don't be honest. That's the first thing they tell the people.
But in our experience, where I have intervened personally with offenders, most of these men are relieved that they were found out and now it's going to stop, and there may be a chance to help them change their behaviour.
Mr. Maloney: This program is for the entire community, not just the youth offenders?
Mr. Hardisty: It's for all offences now.
Mr. Maloney: Thank you, Madam Chair.
The Chair: I understand there is an article in Maclean's magazine about your program.
Mr. Hardisty: That's what I was told this morning when I got here. I didn't know about that.
The Chair: Actually, you've been the subject of quite a bit of public writing, have you not? A book and other....
Mr. Hardisty: We did an article back in April 1995, I believe, with The Globe and Mail. They did a story on what we were doing.
The Chair: So the community at large has been very interested in these programs for a long time. It's a great honour to have you contributing today. Thank you very much.
Mr. Hardisty: Thank you.
The Chair: Before we rise for a few minutes, we have a procedural matter.
Our next witnesses will be the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations. Cal Albright is the director of corrections and youth justice. He has brought with him their justice director, a community elder, and a young offender. I would like to suggest that we go in camera because of the presence of the young offender, so that we can be free to benefit from his information. He's here with permission, but we have some privacy concerns, and I'd like your thoughts on that.
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Proceedings continue in camera]