EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Monday, October 28, 1996

.1204

[English]

The Chair: Order. We're now on the record.

This is a meeting of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. We're very happy to be in the Yukon.

.1205

I just want to say - because I know he's sitting in the front row here - that one of the reasons we're here is that shortly after I was elected chair of the justice committee, Jack Cable started calling me every day. We're very glad to be here.

We have with us today Kathy Watson, mayor of Whitehorse; Larry Bagnell, executive director of the Association of Yukon Communities; and Helen Hassard from the Haines Junction Justice Committee.

Welcome, everyone. I think because there are two groups we'll ask Kathy to make her remarks and then we'll have Helen do the same. After that we'll have a lot of questions.

Ms Kathy Watson (President, Association of Yukon Communities): Thank you very much. Along with being president of our association I am mayor of the city of Whitehorse. In both of those capacities I would like to welcome you to the Yukon. I know you have limited resources to do this research, and I'm very happy you have decided to take the time to visit the Yukon and hear the northern perspective on some of the justice issues you are pursuing.

The Association of Yukon Communities, for whom I am speaking this morning, represents close to 85% of the Yukon's population. Our members include entirely the municipalities in the Territories. I think that's a very important point to remember as I make my comments this morning.

We have a resolution on the books that has been fulfilled by the task you have taken this morning, and certainly we are very happy to see that the Young Offenders Act is being addressed in terms of some of the concerns that have come forward. In doing some research to make my presentation this morning. it became apparent to me that this is the only resolution we have on the books. In fact, that resolution has already been fulfilled. I'm very happy to say that I'm 100% successful in shooting for some success here.

I would like to indicate, however, some of the discussions and concerns that have come forward from the municipalities and that have in fact brought us to this resolution. I suppose it's a heightened awareness of youth crime and a type of sophistication in the youth crime area that we have seen evolve in the Yukon where young offenders guilty of break and enters and nuisance and mischief-type crimes have escalated to kidnapping, gang-type warfare involving bombings, and some very serious activities that have been life-threatening and certainly very disturbing to many Yukon municipalities, not the least of which is the city of Whitehorse, which has witnessed some of these crimes in the last short while.

There seems to be a high level of frustration on behalf of restitution for the victims of that crime. As a parent of young people, it seems that restitution is very important not only for the victims of crime but also for those perpetuating the crime. It is important to make good. It is important to apologize, to make some attempt to undo the harm done through crime.

I want to tell you a bit of a personal story on the frustrations of the community with youth crime. I was involved several years ago with a group of people building a new church, expanding a new Anglican parish in Whitehorse. During the construction period and the first three years that church was operating we had fourteen - fourteen - separate incidents of break and enter at the church. Astronomical. There were charges laid on two separate occasions out of those fourteen incidents.

We went through several thousand dollars' worth of repairs to windows and paint and doorjambs and siding. It was all just nonsense. There was no theft. Nothing productive came out of this on behalf of the people offending the building.

.1210

Even more disturbing than the building having been the location of fourteen separate incidents of offence was the fact that things have changed dramatically. In my day it would have been absolutely unthinkable to do any kind of mischief or destruction to a church. I don't know if that indicates a change in youth crime, but it certainly brought it home to the people involved. It was very disturbing.

Luckily we have taken actions that have seen this reduced, and the neighbourhood has grown up around us. There are a lot of eyes paying attention to the activity in that location. I think it speaks to the type of frustration and the reasons for restitution.

Of the communities that the association has as members, the city of Whitehorse is by far the largest. Many of our municipalities are communities of a few hundred - in fact, we'll be hearing from Haines Junction shortly, which is one of those communities - where people actually know their neighbours and know them well. Still, there is a concern about youth crime.

The resolution I spoke of earlier that was adopted by the association membership was put forward by the town of Watson Lake. They are experiencing an elevation of more sophisticated crime, and I believe the resolution came from concerns over a young offender who was on probation when he stabbed to death another young person from Watson Lake. Certainly that seems unnecessary when we consider that a life is lost while we're considering being lenient or thinking that the crime has been paid for. The youth is put back on the street only to continue to offend.

I don't come today with any solutions but with concerns, as a leader, as a parent, and as someone who really loves the communities in the north. We have to do something about young offenders and how they are dealt with. We have to do something for our youth and we have to consider the victims of youth crime.

With that, Madam Chair, I conclude my comments this morning.

The Chair: Thank you. Ms Hassard.

Ms Helen Hassard (Haines Junction Justice Committee): I represent a community of about 1,000 people and a first nation, Champagne Aishihik, of about another 1,000, so that's 2,000 people.

Our youth crime is mainly a result, it appears, of alcohol and drug usage. As do most communities, we suffer from assaults and break-and-enters. Our assaults have escalated quite a bit. We now have stabbings where the victim's life is threatened. We never used to have that.

The committee is made up of six members, three from each side. We have a couple of concerns. One is the confidentiality of the young offenders. We are concerned with community-based justice, and that includes healing circles, talking circles and mediation. The confidentiality of the young offenders hinders some of the support we can give the victims, their families and the offender. One example is that we had a stabbing and we couldn't do anything with any kind of healing circle. These two youths were best friends and their families lived side by side. One family has now left our community with no intention of coming back, but before they left there was an incident where the accused was almost hurt.

This gets worse as time goes on. Our courts are only every two months to four months, so there's a lot of time for anger to grow. Without any kind of support or healing able to take place, it gets to be a bigger problem.

The other thing about confidentiality is the rumours that go around in small communities. These rumours are based on hearsay, and none of the police and probation officials are able to tell the truth. So they grow and get distorted and we get a lot of frustration from that.

.1215

The third point concerning the confidentiality is that the secrecy it involves does not allow for deterrence to happen. The offender believes no one knows what his crime was or what his punishment is. So he's not deterred. The people in the schools, the other youths, aren't deterred by this because they don't know what's going on. Most people believe the youth is not being punished where quite often this isn't necessarily true. But if they had to face the community, face their responsibilities, those deterrents would work a lot better.

We only have two concerns out there. The other concern is the accountability of the lower age limit. Over the years we've had a few crimes, not many, committed by children 10, 11 years old. The victims of these break-and-enters ended up having to pay completely for the lost belongings and the broken belongings and all of this. That isn't fair, because you victimize the victim twice. If we could find a way to make the family - I don't know, there's no solution here - or someone accountable for this, then the victims at least will only be victimized once and they'll at least have some kind of justice.

Those are the two concerns the justice committee wanted me to bring up.

The Chair: Thank you, Helen.

Mr. St-Laurent, do you have some questions?

[Translation]

Mr. St-Laurent (Manicouagan): First of all, I'd like to question Ms. Hassard on her Justice committee. You had problems with some data. I haven't understood the action taken by your committee. Does it look after victims or young offenders, or both at once to try to find the middle ground, to bring people together to talk to one another with the police being involved in all this? What is your place in this process and what kind of intervention do you do in the field to justify your role?

[English]

Ms Hassard: I'm the coordinator and we have six appointed members - three from the Village of Haines Junction and three from the Champagne Aishihik First Nation. We are concerned with the victims, the offenders, their families and our community at large.

We deal with prevention, the court process and the community-based circle sentencing, healing circles, diversion, pretty much all of it. Basically, our approach is a holistic method where we get the offender to heal his problems, mainly alcohol, which is quite often the major problem. If he quits drinking and starts living a more productive life, then we've got a citizen who is contributing instead of hindering the community.

[Translation]

Mr. St-Laurent: That's an interesting fact because holistic and sentencing circles are of great interest to me. In your committee's experience, what was the crime solution rate before you implemented this holistic approach? What was the result?

.1220

Madam mayor was saying earlier that the crime rate was now higher and that the crimes were more violent. That's very significant and represents quite a noteworthy change. Since your committee system came into force, has the situation improved or, as the mayor has stated, has it deteriorated? What do you think?

[English]

Ms Hassard: We've only been doing healing circles for a couple of years and the process is a very long one. It takes two to three years to even get through the court process, in that they are on probation for two to three years. We've only got about ten people who have gone through the circle, most of whom are now productive citizens with full-time jobs. They no longer drink, do drugs or anything like that.

We have yet to have a youth go through. We're trying to find someone who is motivated. That's one thing that has to happen: the person has to be motivated to change his life. With all the assistance of the court process and the citizens in our community they do change their lives quite often.

[Translation]

Mr. St-Laurent: Who went through this system? You say that there haven't been any young offenders yet. So it's only been adults who have been through this?

[English]

Ms Hassard: Yes, we are.

[Translation]

Mr. St-Laurent: Are the crimes these people are accused of mainly crimes against the person or against property? To what point does your organization get involved in the judicial process? In other words, when someone commits murder, I imagine that the crime is too serious for the situation to be taken over by your sentencing circle. What is your role in a situation like that?

[English]

Ms Hassard: With the young offenders we generally make sure they've got a lawyer and know what's going on so that they're fairly represented within the court process. We ensure the victim is comfortable and knows exactly what is going on with the court process. We help them in any way we can.

As far as our healing circles are concerned, the most serious crime we have dealt with has been assault. The circles have been successful in that the couples are staying together, learning how to deal with their anger, learning how to live a life where they're not hurting each other.

We haven't had a youth through our circle yet because most of them don't know they've got a drinking problem. They don't know they've got an illegal drug problem. Until they realize this and are willing to change and give up the bad habits, it's very difficult to help them.

Most of the crimes with our youth are property crimes.

[Translation]

Mr. St-Laurent: Thank you. Madam Mayor, you understand that if the legislation could be changed, we would ask the witnesses what changes they would like to see implemented. According to your statement, we should develop some sort of paragraph ensuring the protection and compensation of victims. That is more or less your message to this committee this morning, correct?

[English]

Ms Watson: Yes, I would agree that the concerns I have brought forward are with regard to restitution. But I believe there's also a very strong desire to have the names of serious or repeat offenders published in order for a community to better prepare itself as well.

.1225

We set up systems to warn people of dangerous weather or road hazards or other things that are physical obstacles to their safety in a community. I believe we have an obligation, a desire, a need, to address other types of safety as well. Certainly that can better be addressed by knowing what those dangers are or where those concerns are.

In a community where parents actually know the children their children are playing with, I think it's important to be aware of the dangerous situations we put our own children in. If we have no idea who those young offenders are, we can't protect our own children from the company of dangerous people.

We wouldn't consider doing that with adults. We would not allow our children to play with offenders of an adult nature if we knew they were dangerous people. Yet we don't have anything in place to protect our children from young offenders in the same manner.

[Translation]

Mr. St-Laurent: Concerning the publication of these names, we met youngsters and parents throughout our travels in the course of all our research. Every time we mentioned publishing names, the youngsters were unanimous that this was pointless and would accomplish nothing but enhance their reputation among a certain group. For the main players, this was an incentive rather than a deterrent. Do you have any alternate solution or are you adamant about publishing names? Have you conducted any research proving that this would be a deterrent?

[English]

Ms Watson: Maybe I haven't made it clear. My concern was less with deterrence than with safety of others. The point in publishing the names of young offenders would be to protect the people who live with them in society as opposed to using that as a deterrent.

I have not done the research with regard to deterrence, Monsieur St-Laurent, but I do feel there is an aspect of accountability that also has to be addressed. I wouldn't particularly care to have the things I've done wrong published in the newspaper either, but being accountable for those things, those offences, certainly is a responsibility that responsible citizens should take on, whether they're young or old.

[Translation]

Mr. St-Laurent: Thank you very much.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you. Mr. Ramsay.

Mr. Ramsay (Crowfoot): Thank you, Madam Chair, and I'd like to thank our witnesses this morning for coming. I wish we had more time to spend with you.

With regard to issues you've raised this morning, they seem to be basically the principle of non-disclosure and this whole area of what we do with young offenders - in fact, any offender, but we're looking at the young offenders. When it's clear that after the warrant has expired, in the case of a closed custody individual, and no rehabilitation has taken place and we're going to release that individual back into society when he poses a threat to society, of course I'm opposed to that.

If we cannot protect society from people who have demonstrated by their past actions that they pose a threat, if rehabilitation programs have not clicked in, if they don't want to admit they either have a drug problem or an alcohol problem or whatever that problem is, and if they do not embrace in a positive way the rehabilitative programs that are there for their assistance, then we have to address that issue. In other words, why are we releasing people back into society who are at high risk to re-offend?

So I have sympathy for what's being here said here this morning. In fact, our party - and I don't wish to become partisan - represents that very view, that in cases of serious offences, particularly violent offences and drug trafficking offences, parents should be equipped with that information to protect their children.

.1230

There's another side to that, too. There are many adults who, if they knew that a young person was experiencing difficulty, would be willing to come forward and assist. If we keep that information away from them because of the disclosure requirements, then that's not possible.

We are wrestling with that, and we'll be submitting a report and recommendations. Perhaps we'll be submitting a minority report if we feel that the government side of our committee doesn't include some of the recommendations we would like to see. The views will be expressed in terms of recommendations, and that is one of them. We're not concerned about having the news media report something that is minor - some young child stealing a chocolate bar or whatever. But we have to look at the safety of society. This is the problem - striking a balance between the safety of society and the rehabilitation of the offender.

If you're going to cover the offences with a blanket of secrecy, it is argued very strongly that this will assist the rehabilitation of the offender. But if you do that, you're taking away from the right of society to have the information that will arm them in order to protect themselves and allow them to take whatever action, and that has been indicated by your testimony this morning - of parents who would want to keep their children away from dangerous individuals. In other areas we do that; we keep them away from dangerous places, dangerous buildings, dangerous sites, and so on. I don't think a justice system based upon secrecy or the withholding of the truth is right, in the long run. I agree with that.

I have another concern I want to ask you about in the limited time I have. In 1984, when we went from the Juvenile Delinquents Act to the Young Offenders Act, what in fact the federal government did was decriminalize any act committed by anyone under the age of 12. If an assault, a murder, a rape or whatever takes place, there is no authority to deal with the criminal offence. I have some real concerns about that.

The only authority the provinces have is the under the child welfare authority of the Constitution. The responsibility of maintaining peace, order, and good government comes under the head of the Constitution authorizing the federal government.... If we shirk our duties and responsibilities, which as I said occurred in 1984.... We have had a witness or two appear before this committee who felt that perhaps we could raise the age under which it would not be a criminal offence to 14.

I think we're at the edge of a slippery slope. I think that regardless of the treatment that say a 10-year-old might receive under the criminal justice system, the criminal justice system should be authorized to deal with any criminal offence regardless of the age. The treatment option should be there, certainly: you treat a 10-year-old differently than you treat a 17-year-old or an adult. But I feel that the authority should be restored, and that's why we advocate and support what Professor Bala suggested to the committee - that we reduce the age from 12 to 10. Some say why not go lower. We could look at that, but that's been the recommendation, and that's what we support.

I'd like your comments on that - about lowering the age, and about this whole idea that since 1984 if a 10-year-old or 11-year-old steals a car it's not a criminal offence; if they commit rape, it's not a criminal offence; even if they were to commit murder, it's not a criminal offence. There's no authority in the provinces to deal with it as a criminal offence, but only to deal with it under the child welfare authority. Do you have any comments or thoughts in this particular area?

.1235

Ms Hassard: One of the concerns the justice committee has regarding this is that we don't know if putting these children in jail will do any good. We do know that quite often when they're young offenders, they will stay young offenders, so we don't know if it will do any good.

What we do think is that we should somehow equip their parents, enabling them to deal with and keep their young children under control, because you're in a lot of trouble if you can't keep your 10-year-old under control when he or she hits 13, because then they're gone.

Mr. Ramsay: Okay. This ties in with the other message we're hearing from some areas of the country, particularly in public meetings - that the parents should be held more accountable for the criminal actions of their children.

In fact we heard from a judge who thought there should be more sanctions on parents placed within the Young Offenders Act. In the Northwest Territories we heard a statistic that in only 5% of the cases do parents attend count with their children. For such reasons this judge was suggesting greater sanctions.

Now you're not going to put a 10-year-old in jail, and that's not the issue. The issue is the authority to deal effectively, to ensure that that young child gets the necessary treatment and help and support. But by what authority do you do that? By looking at it from that point of view, do we say, well, we will decriminalize any criminal act that a 10-year-old or 11-year-old might commit?

Another thing we see is that the older kids use the younger kids. That's happening now. In fact adults are involving children in crime, and they're using them knowing full well that if they're over 12 the sentences aren't very serious, and if they're under there's none at all.

We had a young offender in Edmonton who was stealing car after car after car, who was 10 or 11 years old. Nothing really could be done about it except under the authority of the child welfare. As we heard from the Alberta representatives, they feel that in some cases the child welfare authority falls short of the authority required to ensure that these young people receive the treatment and support they need.

Ms Watson: I can't respond on behalf of the members of the Association of Yukon Communities to that comment, or to that question, but there are some personal comments I would like to make.

My concern is that if we just say we can't do it that way any more, and don't provide the tools to improve the system, we are merely moving it off our desks but not dealing with the problem. An example might be when corporal punishment became inappropriate in the school system. And I don't disagree that it is inappropriate, but I'm not sure that the people who were charged with disciplining the children in the school were provided the alternatives to corporal punishment in order to deal with behaviour problems in the school environment.

I feel a little bit like that is what has happened with the Young Offenders Act. By decriminalizing, by assuming these ``if A, then B'', we haven't filled the gap of how to deal with situations of serious magnitude, like a 10-year-old who is stealing cars on a regular basis, or a 10-year-old who should be charged with murder, who takes someone else's life intentionally. Those are problems that are unimaginable.

At the same time, if we take away the normal tools to deal with such crime, we have to be able to replace them with something that is effective, and which we recognize.

.1240

I agree entirely with parental responsibility. Often at the beginning stages, if the parents are brought in to the environment to act as assisters to deal with behaviour of young people, if they know what to do, then making the parents responsible is the appropriate thing to do - provided they know how to be good parents. But most of us learned how to parent by being children. Some of us don't have the tools needed to do a good job, depending on where we came from.

We have to recognize that. We can't say, well, then, you're responsible, because what happens if we send all the parents to jail? What happens to the children perpetrating such horrible crimes? There has to be some mechanism to fix it rather than to just punish. I believe restitution as rehabilitation is one of the directions we could take.

Of the fourteen incidents at the church I spoke of, even when the two offenders were charged and convicted of doing harm to this facility it was still volunteers from the church who went back to fix the broken glass, to mend the lawn and to repair broken concrete. The young offenders, the people convicted of offending on this property, were never involved in making it better.

In my home environment, if my children broke something they would be involved in fixing it, and certainly if there was intent to break. It allows the offender the opportunity to apologize in an effective and productive way. It allows the victim to feel that somehow things have been made better from the offence they've suffered. There is a rehabilitative quality to it that's seems so obvious to me.

Mr. Ramsay: Thank you, Madam Chair.

The Chair: Mr. Maloney.

Mr. Maloney (Erie): When you referred to the incidents with the church you said you fixed the problem. After fourteen incidents in three years, what did you do? How did you fix the problem?

Ms Watson: Largely by paying closer attention to the property. As I also indicated, Mr. Maloney, the neighbourhood grew up around us as well, so there was activity in the neighbourhood day and night. Families were living there. That certainly helped put eyes on it.

As well, we provided better lighting. As parishioners we took responsibility for keeping an eye on it on our way by. We talked to some of the neighbours whose properties backed onto the property and asked them to let us know if there was something going on that seemed inappropriate on the property. There were several initiatives like that.

Mr. Maloney: Do you know the ages of the young offenders?

Ms Watson: I believe one was 17. He was caught with some rebar stuck in the grill of his truck after driving through the fence we had made around our new grass. Another one was 14, I believe.

Mr. Maloney: How much damage did they cause in terms of dollars?

Ms Watson: As I recall, we had something like 18 broken windows. We had to repair those at some cost, at I believe $250 per window. They were odd-shaped, of course, because they were in a church. That involves an extra expense.

Eventually we put a plexiglas-type protective finish over them. It's really ugly but it certainly keeps us from breaking the windows. I believe it was several thousand dollars' worth of damage. In total there was more than $3,000 damage over the 14 incidents.

Mr. Maloney: You say you agree with parental responsibility. What form should this take? How do we hold parents accountable? I think you've acknowledged that it might not do very much good to put these parents in jail. How do we hold them more accountable in an effective way - if it's possible to do that?

Ms Watson: Restitution possibly would be the first step - for instance, if a young offender smashes the windows in your car. This happened to me one night at a meeting. I had the windows broken in my vehicle.

If I knew my young man was involved in such an incident I would feel responsibility to repair that damage. Perhaps in the rehabilitation of a young offender the parents should be involved as well, right in the rehabilitation.

Mr. Maloney: By court order?

Ms Watson: By court order. A lot of parents want to be involved. When we see the national statistics, I'm not so sure they apply to youth court. I would guess they don't - not that it's not a problem that parents aren't taking an interest in the behaviour of their children and the court proceedings that come from that, but I think we would find some difference in the numbers. I'm basing that on no statistics, just on having been there a couple of times and paying attention to the proceedings.

.1245

As a parent I often feel frustrated by the resources available to me as far as improving the behaviour of my children is concerned, or actually knowing the involvement of your child in different situations. I think it's important that parents pay attention to what's going on. Certainly being involved in the process of restitution or rehabilitation is an excellent way for them to be involved.

I'm not sure incarceration is the way to go, but apparently several opportunities available to the courts don't involve incarceration.

Mr. Maloney: You've mentioned restitution many times. I don't necessarily disagree with you, but what do we do in a situation where damage is $30,000 as opposed to $300 for replacement of a car window? How many families have the resources to pay that kind of money, and how do we get around that problem? One's easy, one's not so easy.

Ms Watson: We use community work as a tool of the courts now. To my mind, that seems like an appropriate way to deal with some offences. Perhaps that community work could be directed at the people who had been offended. If you can't repair my window, maybe you can wash the rest of them. If you can't provide sod for the damage you've done to the lawn, perhaps you can rake the lawn. I think that kind of community work connects the offender with the victim in a way that is good for everybody involved.

It can't always be money. That's often the problem with young offenders - their social situation. But there are other ways to make good.

Mr. Maloney: You've said that in your community one of your problems is that the courts don't come for two to four months. At what point does your youth justice committee kick in? Do you have to wait for the court to come, or can they just work with the police when the incident happens?

Ms Hassard: Generally, we begin to help as soon as we find out something has happened. We talk to the victim to make sure they're all right and they understand what is going on within the community. We also ensure that the offender is all right and knows what going on. We do this because quite often our victims and offenders live literally side by side. They're next-door neighbours. They are often family members. Within the first nations we have very few families living within Haines Junction, so they're often family members. So we do as much as we can as soon as we can.

In one of our incidents, the offenders, the victim and all of the families wanted a healing circle. That's where people sit down, talk out their frustrations and find some solutions. A problem came up when the offender was pleading innocent. We couldn't have a healing circle because it would have interfered with his court case so badly it wouldn't have been able to go ahead. So there was no healing circle. Two months later, while we were still waiting for the court case, the victim attacked the accused. I don't know whether it would have happened anyway, but we would have had less chance of it happening had we been able to do something when the original crime happened. Now both parties are really messed-up kids. Nothing could be done, because the time went by. Both kids said, that's it, they weren't going to do it.

Mr. Maloney: You have two victims and now two accused, as well.

On the age factor, we've talked about the lowering of the age from...Mr. Ramsay has it from 12 to 10. Could you envisage, instead of lowering it to 12, having a procedure that, in serious crimes, with repeat offenders, you could, perhaps on an application to a judge, go after the ones under 12? Would that work, do you think, as opposed to lowering it to 10 or lowering it to 8 or whatever? What are your thoughts on that?

Ms Hassard: Quite often it depends on how mature the child is.

Mr. Maloney: That's the problem with the age.

.1250

Ms Hassard: I don't think setting it at one definite age will cause all the cures we hope it will. We need to have some type of assessment structure where if a 10-year-old thinks and acts in every way like a 14-year-old, they may be able to be charged. But if the 10-year-old acts like a 10-year-old, and really doesn't know that what they did was truly wrong, then maybe we can deal with it another way than through the court system.

Mr. Maloney: Thank you, Madam Chair.

The Chair: Ms Torsney.

Ms Torsney (Burlington): One of the issues you raised, Ms Watson, was that if you published the names of the children you could tell your children not to hang out with these particular children. You'd have some protection.

When we asked kids who'd been in trouble about this, many of them scoffed and said, ``Right - my parents can tell me who to hang out with?'' Kids will find ways to hang out with the kids they want to hang out with, no matter what their parents tell them. In a way, a lot of the kids knew who the kids in trouble were without ever having the names published, a bit like the rumour mill you mentioned.

The other thing the kids themselves raised, particularly in the case of two drug dealers.... One of them said he was doing this stuff for three years and your kid could have hung out with him because his name wasn't published anywhere. He wasn't charged or anything. Now that he's been charged, he's cleaned up his act and he won't do this again, if you tell your kid not to hang out with him it doesn't really help.

The other child said he was a drug dealer, and if his name was in the paper - as he put it, if he ``touched paper'' - he'd be a big man with his friends. Not only that, he's a drug dealer: he'd get more business.

Do you think sometimes kids know a lot more than we know and the publication wouldn't really help? Do you think there probably could be some better way to deal with the children identified as trouble and to bring them back into our community rather than push them out into their own little group of kids who've been in trouble because no one else will hang out with them?

Ms Watson: I suppose those comments make a whole lot of sense if it's not your daughter dating an 18-year-old drug dealer or it's not your 3-year-old being left in the care of a 15-year-old rapist whose name hasn't been published.

Some common sense elements have to be involved here. No matter how you have paid for your crime, if you have a history of rape I don't think you should be babysitting anybody's children. Certainly that's a very common activity for teenage children. Teenagers always babysat my children when they were little.

I suppose it has less to do with who are your friends and who are you hanging around with than it has to do with who are you exposed to by permission of your parents.

I agree with you to some degree that integration is a really effective tool in solving a lot of the world's ills. Certainly we create problems by ostracizing and setting aside certain individuals for whatever reason. By the same token, should that be at the expense of others in the community who become victims because of a secret?

We raise our children to appreciate the fact that there are some things you shouldn't keep secret, that it's important to communicate back and forth, and by the same token, out of a sense of justice and fairness, we choose to keep secrets. I'm not sure that's the best way to deal with things. Communication is often the problem between youth and their parents.

I can see where a little bit of information becomes dangerous, but the more information we gather as parents who have to be able to equip our children for the real world.... I think it's important to have full knowledge when we're doing that.

Ms Torsney: Here in the Yukon, in what grade do children learn about the Young Offenders Act in detail?

Ms Watson: I doubt very much if it's taught in the schools, but I can be pretty certain it's taught behind schools.

Ms Torsney: This is part of the problem, I suppose.

.1255

One of the things we hear a lot, although we didn't hear it this morning, is that kids are wilfully breaking the law, and that they know the law inside out. One of the things we often hear from the kids who've been in trouble is that they had no idea that the act was so tough. They didn't necessarily appreciate a lot of the nuances.

Most kids in Ontario, for instance, learn about the Young Offenders Act when they take a grade 12 law course, which is of course when they're 17. This is a bit late. Maybe if we actually sat them down somewhere earlier - in grade eight or something - and told them about the law and how it applies to them, we might have better compliance and understanding and fewer kids getting into trouble accidentally as well.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms Torsney. I want to thank our panellists for their assistance this morning. It was very helpful, and it was a good start to our Yukon visit. Thank you.

We'll rise for a couple of minutes while our next witnesses get ready.

.1256

.1302

The Chair: We're back.

I want to welcome our next panellists: Rose Wilson, Angie Wabisca, Shirley Adamson and Sandi Gleason. They are from the Council of Yukon First Nations.

We want to welcome you. I know that you have a brief, so I'd ask you to make your presentation and save us some time for questions. Obviously, in advance we have the group of first nations because they're entirely represented by women.

Grand Chief Shirley Adamson (Council of Yukon First Nations): Thank you, Madam Chair.

Members of the standing committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear here before you today.

The Council of Yukon First Nations is the central government of 11 of the 14 first nations in the Yukon. As the central government, the Council of Yukon First Nations represents the interests of its constituents in relation to territorial, national and international issues.

Unfortunately, due to its disproportionate impact upon the lives of Yukon first nations people, the justice system is one of those issues for which the Council of Yukon First Nations must advocate the interests and concerns of its constituents. Although our self-government agreements provide Yukon first nations with the ability to establish an administration of justice structure in the near future, which will meet the needs and concerns of our people, we continue to work and promote meaningful change within the structure of the Canadian justice system.

Over the past year, the Council of Yukon First Nations has focused its efforts and resources in order to spearhead and participate in a number of justice projects. They include: (a) a family violence study that examines spousal assault and mandatory charging in the Yukon; (b) territorial-wide consultations that culminated in a document entitled Keeping Kids Safe; (c) the ``Talking About Crime'' committee, which held public meetings in every Yukon community and made recommendations on how to make Yukon communities safer; and (d) the Council of Yukon First Nations recently facilitated a two-day justice summit entitled ``Creating a Vision'', which Yukon first nation people from every community attended, to discuss community justice issues in relation to both adults and youth.

.1305

In particular, the ``Creating a Vision'' justice summit provided valuable information from the experiences, concerns and knowledge of Yukon first nation people and communities. My presentation to the standing committee represents an opportunity to relay this information to government.

Although each of these justice projects did not only focus on these issues, there were a number of issues related to our youth that were consistently raised. These issues were common themes, whether it was a discussion of youth, adult, or community justice issues.

I can summarize these issues into four main points: (1) dealing with family issues; (2) the lack of community-based resources and training; (3) the need for more community-based alternatives; (4) the need for traditionally and culturally appropriate strategies that are driven by Yukon first nations. I will expand on these four points during my presentation and provide statistical information in relation to the youth of Yukon first nations in order to illustrate our concerns.

First, dealing with family issues, upon reflection of the vast amount of justice reports and information relating to Yukon first nations, this issue was raised again and again. Unfortunately, in many cases the justice system is dealing with fundamental family issues, and in most of those cases the justice system does not have the ability or vision to successfully resolve these issues.

Yukon first nation people have repeatedly indicated that the justice system is only dealing with superficial issues. The justice system has failed to, and perhaps it cannot, deal with the root causes of family dysfunction and criminal activity. We maintain that both family dysfunction and criminal activity are often manifestations of those root problems.

By root problems, I'm referring to abuses including alcohol, physical, mental or sexual, as well as other issues such as poverty. We are beginning to realize that these root problems are often responsible for the activities of our youth that lead to their conflict with the criminal justice system and more often than not to incarceration.

We see that these root problems are intergenerational. That is, they are often being passed from parent to child, thus forming a vicious cycle from one generation to the next. This is unacceptable. Therefore it is crucial that the root problems of youth are addressed in a holistic fashion. For instance, only addressing alcohol or drug abuse may not be effective because sobriety may only uncover other issues such as physical, mental or sexual abuse, which must then be addressed.

Presently, in most of the communities in the Yukon it is difficult to receive professional counselling or any sort of assistance with such problems. In fact, most of the time the person or family has to leave the community to get effective treatment or assistance. Otherwise, people must rely on their family for assistance, which in many cases leads to further stress in the family unit.

Another issue that was consistently raised was a concern that the family and community have lost their right to raise and parent their children. Many Yukon first nation people believe that when a child enters the criminal justice system their participation is excluded. We maintain that the justice system must provide the opportunity for the involvement of the family, including the extended family. The immediate family of a young person who is in conflict with the justice system may be in a crisis situation and therefore may also require assistance.

.1310

In many cases it appears that the criminal justice system has assumed the responsibility of the parent. A strong analogy can be drawn between the childhood experiences of many Yukon first nation people within the context of residential schools and the present institutional rearing of many young Yukon first nation children within the context of the justice system. It seems that although the forum may have changed, the effect and impact of the Yukon first nations is the same.

Second is the lack of community-based resources and training. Yukon first nation people believe that there is a need for sufficient community-based resources in order to adequately and effectively address the root problems plaguing other communities. Unfortunately, the bulk of the available resources in the Yukon, such as youth services and family violence, are centrally located in Whitehorse.

A crucial need has been identified for ongoing support and aftercare for Yukon first nations communities. For example, community training must be ongoing and focused on developing skills rather than infrequent annual workshops. This support and aftercare is required for both our youth and families while they are going through a healing process addressing their root problem. This holistic healing process cannot be considered a one- or two-year initiative, but in many cases an ongoing life process.

In addition, our communities are demanding substantive involvement and input in the development of training programs. These programs must meet our needs, not the needs or criteria of government. The cookie-cutter initiatives that government provides without any community input have more often than not failed in our communities. For instance, training programs need to be more flexible in terms of their funding criteria. It is counter-productive for our communities to adjust our needs in order to fit criteria set out by government. In many cases such criteria do not meet the traditional or cultural needs or address the root problems of our community.

Third is the need for more community-based alternatives. Each Yukon first nation has expressed the need in the community for more alternatives to the justice system. For instance, Yukon first nations maintain that alternatives such as wilderness camps for youth sentenced to custodial time would be more beneficial and perhaps more cost-effective than sending them to Whitehorse.

The young offenders' secured custody facility in the Yukon is located in Whitehorse. Therefore, when a youth is on remand or sentenced to secure custody, they are often removed from their families and community support structure. Furthermore, Yukon first nations identified the need to have more community-based alternatives rather than allocating the bulk of the resources and funding to central initiatives and institutions such as the young offenders' facility.

Although the operating costs of central institutions are escalating, government continues to allocate additional funding to them. But when a community identifies a need and proposes the project for an alternative initiative, such as a wilderness camp, government often responds that it cannot provide funds to such initiatives due to the fiscal restraints.

Again, I stated that the Yukon first nation people want to be a part of the lives of those youths in conflict with the justice system. It is hoped that community-based alternatives would provide the opportunity for the community to be involved from the moment the youth is in conflict with the justice system, through to the sentencing, and afterwards in the form of counselling or aftercare.

Although ``circle sentencing'' has provided for limited input of the community in terms of sentencing, Yukon first nations maintain that community-based alternatives must be more significant and meaningful.

I'd like to provide a tangible example of the frustration felt by the Yukon first nation communities when they are not adequately resourced. Without adequate resources there will not be effective community-based alternatives. This means that the community does not have the ability to provide assistance to youth who are in conflict with the justice system and therefore in most cases they will be placed in secured custody in Whitehorse.

.1315

In addition, there's a need for community-based alternatives in relation to aftercare when a youth has completed his or her sentence. The period of time following a sentence is crucial. The community must be able to maintain the momentum of any positive aspects that come out of the sentence.

Furthermore, it is essential when a youth returns to the community from custody that support is provided to the youth to facilitate his or her reintegration into the family and into the community. However, I again note that the resources are centrally located in Whitehorse.

Point four is the need for traditionally and culturally appropriate strategies that are driven by Yukon's first nations. Time and time again our elders have stated the importance of our culture and traditional laws. At our ``Creating a Vision'' justice summit, our elder Roddy Blackjack spoke about the importance of the Yukon first nation culture. He stated:

Our great-grandfather law has been overcome by the government. We can bring back this law through our self-government, through our elders. We have to bring it back. When I talk about culture, I talk about First Nations culture - separate from the white culture....

I do not believe the point can be made more succinctly or eloquently. Government must realize that justice programs, strategies and initiatives must reflect the input and needs of Yukon first nations. Otherwise, criteria that are established by people who do not live or have any connection with our communities will continue to render those justice programs, strategies and initiatives ineffective.

Again, I would like to provide an example that illustrates the importance of criteria in the successful implementation of justice programs, strategies and initiatives. A diversion program has been operating in Whitehorse for the past three years. Over those three years, the number of youth going through the diversion program has been steadily increasing, but because of the criteria only 30% of the youth processed through the diversion program have been first nation youth - only 30%.

In fact, at this date there is no diversion program in any of the Yukon first nation communities represented by the Council of Yukon First Nations. There are none. I should note that the Government of Yukon is presently in the process of establishing a protocol for youth diversion in the Yukon without any input or consultation from Yukon first nations.

How do we force government to understand that Yukon first nations need to be involved in the establishment and development of justice programs, strategies and initiatives, in order to ensure that they will be effective for our youth? This involvement does not simply mean our consultation for a completed product.

In order for you to fully understand the impact of the justice system on our youth, I will provide some statistical information that was obtained from the Government of Yukon through their youth services. Fully 70% of youth in custody in Whitehorse at any given time are first nation youth. The first nation community comprises slightly over 20% of the overall population of the Yukon. The Yukon has the highest remand detention for youth anywhere in Canada. Yukon has the highest use of custody in Canada - 40% of sentenced youth are sentenced to custody. The young offenders facility has had a 50% increase in bed-days. The average length of time spent in custody is 58 days and is steadily increasing for both sentenced and remand youth. Most offences are alcohol-related.

.1320

This statistical information is self-explanatory. Our youth are entering the justice system at very high rates. Often they do not have the opportunity of diversion or other community-based alternatives. They are being sentenced to the young offenders' facility and they are returning to their communities without any support for reintegration or aftercare.

I realize that in most cases youth are not sentenced to custody for their first or second offences, but the fundamental question is why our youth continue to be in conflict with the justice system.

It's very disheartening that my recommendations are not new. In fact many first nations people have repeatedly made the same points. However, I hope that one day somebody, perhaps yourselves, will actually listen and implement them if we continue to make them, if we continue to make these recommendations, to make these points.

(1) Punitive knee-jerk reactions to fundamental social problems of our communities will not be effective. We do not support any legislation that will only lock up our youth more frequently or for longer periods. We need community-based resources and alternatives in order to allow our communities to raise our youth in accordance with our cultural values.

(2) Yukon first nations need the resources to establish justice processes that reflect our traditions and culture in order to effectively resolve problems with our youth.

(3) The criteria for any justice program, strategies and initiatives, must be developed by our communities in order to ensure the needs of our people are being addressed.

(4) The sentencing of a youth to a secured custody facility should be the last resort.

(5) The family and community should be involved throughout a youth's entire experience with the justice system. This involvement may facilitate the youth's reintegration into the community.

In conclusion, I cannot overemphasize the importance of building and maintaining strong foundations within Yukon first nation communities. These foundations can only be built by Yukon first nation people if they are to meet our traditional and cultural needs. The proposed legislation will not deal with the root problems confronting our youth and communities. Rather, it will only serve to increase the frequency and number of our youth who become entangled in the criminal justice system.

Through our land claim agreements we have begun to assume control over our land and resources. However, we must also have control over our most valuable resource - our youth. They must be raised not by the criminal justice system but by our families and communities in accordance with our traditional and cultural values.

I want to thank you for your kind attention. I have with me several individuals who will respond to questions you may have. Let me now introduce the manager of CYFN's justice program, Ms Sandi Gleason, as well as two of our court workers, Ms Angie Wabisca and Ms Rose Wilson. We shall endeavour to answer any questions you may have as a result of our presentation today.

.1325

The Vice-Chair (Ms Torsney): Thank you, Ms Adamson.

I wanted to clarify one point. On the top of page 9 you mention the proposed legislation, and I wondered which piece of legislation you're referring to.

Grand Chief Adamson: I'm sorry, that's a typographical error. It should be ``the proposed changes to the legislation''.

The Vice-Chair (Ms Torsney): Proposed as in the things you're hearing about from the media and from other people here?

Grand Chief Adamson: Yes.

The Vice-Chair (Ms Torsney): Thank you.

[Translation]

Mr. St-Laurent, I'm giving you two minutes.

Mr. St-Laurent: Thank you for your eloquent statement. At the outset, I've noticed an important element. Among other things, you are proposing that community resources be offered after sentencing. That's an unusual proposal that supports the work of community resources and can mean the difference between success and failure. I like this approach very much.

You said that the current justice system did not care sufficiently for families and that it even distanced itself from them. What major changes would you suggest so that the law can provide for the involvement of families in the legal system so that they are not pushed aside, as you explained so well at the outset? I won't repeat your explanation since it was quite clear.

[English]

Grand Chief Adamson: Thank you very much for your comments on our approach in advocating representation for our first nations people.

I will, because these ladies with me are the front-line workers, allow them to respond to your questions on how we may get our families more involved.

Ms Sandi Gleason (Manager, Native Court Workers Program, Council of Yukon First Nations): If we think of suggestions on getting families more involved, right now they're establishing a protocol for diversion in the territory, but the diversion doesn't fit or meet the needs of first nations people here in the territory. If we're looking at getting families more involved, wouldn't it be more appropriate to have culturally and traditionally sensitive diversion programs that meet the needs of the communities? We have eleven first nations, from all different nations, involved in the Council of Yukon First Nations, and one diversion program is not going to meet the needs of every community.

One way of getting communities involved - which we're looking at - is through diversion or alternative measures programs, so that the communities have more say in what they're trying to develop or deliver. Thereby, families will be involved in suggesting what they think should be happening with the youth, and they will also have resources to draw upon once those suggestions are brought up.

Right now we have a lot of suggestions that come forward through circle sentencing or other community-based alternatives, but a lot of the times the resources just aren't available. It's leading to more time spent on trying to spend our time in other areas, trying to deal with the other issues.

I think one suggestion I could make is that we should have more culturally and traditionally appropriate diversion and alternative measures programs in the communities, which families feel they can access.

.1330

[Translation]

Mr. St-Laurent: You work closer to people. As this lady just said, you work in the front lines. What are the main things that young offenders do to deserve being called young offenders?

In your opinion, is there an increase in the crime rate, in the seriousness of crimes, or both?

[English]

Ms Gleason: We just went through youth services statistics for most of the Yukon and the territories. Serious crimes are decreasing, but on the increase are alcohol-related offences with youth and minor offences such as B and Es or shoplifting under $5,000. Those types of petty things are on the increase. A lot of these youths are doing these crimes to get the alcohol or to get the drugs.

Angie could speak of instances they deal with in youth court for territorial acts.

When we first started dealing with these in the territories, there were hardly any kids on the dockets for that. Now there are always kids on the docket. Now there are kids being locked up in youth custody because they have over time repeatedly built up a number of intoxication tickets for them to be put into the young offenders facility or into open custody. That's what we're seeing an increase in.

Ms Angie Wabisca (Representative, Native Court Workers Program, Council of Yukon First Nations): We've been finding out that a lot more of our youth are in court not for federal offences but for a lot of the territorial statutes, such as our liquor offences. More and more if they're repeat offenders of these offences the territorial crown is now recommending that these youths be imprisoned. There's nothing else to do with them.

When we're talking about family values, no legislation says a parent has to attend court with these children for these liquor act offences. We have wondered if parents have even known their children were drinking. Under a federal offence, the parent has to be notified.

As front-line workers we're finding out that many of our children start out with liquor act tickets and then eventually go into criminal activities.

[Translation]

Mr. St-Laurent: You mentioned earlier that among other alternatives to the current system there were wilderness camps which, in your opinion, were more cost effective. Are you considering this alternative for financial reasons? Do you have any analysis of the effectiveness of wilderness camps or are you basing your assessment solely on the financial aspect?

[English]

Grand Chief Adamson: I'm going to make some statements prior to allowing my colleagues here to give you a technical response to your answer.

Our most valuable resources are our children. Our children are being removed from us. We cannot put a dollar value on the damage that's done to a family and the damage that's done to a community when those children are removed for relatively minor offences at the onset.

I think my colleagues will be able to provide you with better statistical details and be able to sit before you and tell you it costs you more to incarcerate our children than it does to educate them.

.1335

Ms Gleason: If we're looking at the cost for wilderness camps, a number of camps have been set up in the territory. One is in Old Crow. It's like a treatment camp where youth can go, and there's another one....

When we're talking about alternative measures, some of the communities have come forward. We aren't saying we're already doing these; we're saying we need to do these in our communities. We need alternatives to the young offenders facility so that when people do sentence these youths to custody they're not sentencing them to a central facility.

What they're looking at is sentencing them to some custodial time within the community so that they're not separated from their families. If you think of a place like, again, Old Crow, youths have to be flown in. There are no roads, and it's very expensive to travel back and forth.

A lot of times when these kids are brought in from Old Crow they're put into the young offenders facility here. The contact between the youth and their family could be very limited. Some parents don't have the resources to come and see their child. As well, once the child is returned to the community there's no reintegration process worked back into that.

So people from the communities are asking for the chance to work with alternative measures. They want the chance. They brought up the suggestion of a wilderness camp. That's just one suggestion. There are many more. We have a lot more suggestions on what could be done in the communities at the community level, developed by them.

[Translation]

Mr. St-Laurent: All right. Have you noted whether the young people who have been incarcerated in the regular justice system, the one we had for 100 years now, and who returned to your communities, come back in a better state? Did they come out socially rehabilitated or, on the contrary, hasn't their incarceration helped them become better criminals? I would like to hear your views on this.

[English]

Grand Chief Adamson: Again, before I allow my colleagues to respond on some technical detail I'd like to say that our first nations youth ought to be good first nations citizens. That's not what's being provided at the secured custody facilities in Whitehorse. We need the opportunity to parent and to allow our youth to be part of the communities in order for them to become good Yukon first nations citizens.

Ms Rose Wilson (Representative, Native Court Workers Program, Council of Yukon First Nations): We have a treatment camp in Kwanlin Dun. Kwanlin Dun is a suburb of Whitehorse. When we want to send a youth out as a diversion or an alternative to his sentence, one of the things that always is raised is the funding issue. Because of the lack of money we're only able to utilize our treatment camp as a treatment camp. Short-term programs take place maybe a couple of weeks out of every month. If we wanted to sentence a youth for a custody period of, say, 30 days, for two weeks of that month there would be no money to monitor this person or to take care of them while they're up at the camp. That is not available to us. In a lot of cases it's not available to us because of the money.

A lot of kids from my community are flown out to Old Crow to attend the youth camp down there. When they return there is a big change in them. Initially when they return you see that they have goals or that they want to go back to school. They have some really good plans. But this lasts for only a short period of time, because, again, they're taken away from their community, maybe to another first nations community where they begin to know people and feel safe with them. Then they're returned back to their own community, where reality sets in. They're back in their family, which is more than likely in crisis, and there's no help available. They get back into the drinking, hanging around with their old friends who have never had the opportunity to get the type of help that person did. So we find them back in the system again, usually after a month or two. Basically, they're drinking again.

.1340

Another situation I've dealt with is children who are fairly young, maybe 10 or 11 years old, getting into trouble, but because of the age at which they can be charged, they're not being charged with offences. At this time parents are coming to us, asking if they can attend the Old Crow camp or if they can attend some kind of wilderness camp. Again, flying up to Old Crow means enormous cost. I believe it's $600 to $700 to fly just one way to Old Crow.

So that option is not available, especially when parents are out trying to seek that help prior to any charges being laid, knowing that as soon as he reaches a certain age he's going to be entering the system, no doubt about it. But there's nothing out there. Our communities don't have the money to cover these people. The only way these children can get help is if they enter the criminal system.

Ms Gleason: When you're talking about rehabilitation and whether it's making better criminals, it depends on the individual youth. Some youths do come out of it exactly the way Rose said. They have made some positive changes, depending on what they did with their time while they were in there.

Then again, they're returned to the community, and as Rose said, they go back to their same behaviour. They go back to the same people they were working with. There's no positive aftercare and follow-up for what had happened at the young offenders facility.

We do have youth coming back who are better criminals just because they're acting out. They're so angry and frustrated that sometimes doing time at a young offenders facility gives them time to stew and makes them more angry. Sometimes when they do get released the community fears their coming back. They're so angry and so frustrated sometimes the community has a hard time dealing with them when they come back.

That's why we're saying the reintegration approach and follow-up and aftercare are so important. The communities need those resources and access to that so that they have choices in what they can do with their youth before they go to a facility and after their return from a facility.

The Chair: Thank you very much. Mr. Ramsay.

Mr. Ramsay: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would like to thank our witnesses for their presentation this morning. We have heard time and time again as we've crossed the country - the message is clear - that until the community gains the authority to develop programs to deal with the community problem, nothing really is going to get solved.

In other words, it doesn't matter what we do thousands of miles away from you. If we do not empower the community to analyse their own problems and deal with them and come up with a program that will effectively deal with them, it's not going to work. In fact, that's why it's not working. The legislation doesn't reflect the community need.

You spoke about consultation. You indicated that protocol is being developed here, without consultation from the communities, from the first nations. It's not going to work. How can it work unless they know what is in your best interests, unless they know more than you know at the community level about what's happening and what the problems will be? To me, at least, that's absolutely clear.

Certainly there has been sufficient testimony before this committee that if we really want to deal with dysfunctional families, if we really want to deal with children in need and keep them out of the justice system.... It's not a justice problem, really, it's a social problem. And until we allow the people at the community level, through empowering them, to assess their problems and assess what they need in terms of safety, in terms of rehabilitation, and perhaps in terms of punishment for those who do endanger the lives and the property of other people, I don't think we're going to go anywhere. We have to begin there.

.1345

I suppose this is the closest expression of that: us coming here and being able to sit with you for an hour and get what little information we can of the whole amount you have that you would like to leave us with. And then we'll say we touched base with the grass roots and this does reflect what they're thinking. I don't think it will. We can set broad and general guidelines through the criminal law that will give you the tools to deal with those who become so violent that they threaten members of your community. You must have those tools, but I think we must leave all of the details and at least respond to the cries that are coming from the community. I don't know how many times we have to hear that.

You have said things here that are very interesting to me. How would you deal with dysfunctional families? How would you deal with those families that have abused their children, perhaps neglected their children or maybe sexually abused them? How would you deal with those families? How would you deal with the milieu? As you said, they come back from the centre and they get involved with that group again. What about the group? Can you eliminate that group so that when they come back they don't have that negative atmosphere and negative environment that will send them right back down the path to re-incarceration?

Do you have ideas that you'd be willing to share with the committee as to what you would do with the dysfunctional families and with those kids who are on the edge all the time so that when the rehabilitated children come back the programs just disintegrate under them in a short period of time? Do you have any ideas or thoughts you'd like to share with us?

Grand Chief Adamson: I should tell you right from the outset that what's happening to our people in our communities is the result of many years of not having control, not having jurisdiction. This healing process we're involved in is an ongoing process.

Our communities are suffering the effects of the damage wrought on us by a much sicker society. What we have to do as leaders and what we have to do in the communities is to begin to believe in ourselves again, to believe that there's nothing wrong with us.

We have to begin to believe that just being an aboriginal person is not reason enough to feel inferior in this society. We don't expect to sit before this committee or any other committee and say that we have a five-point plan for healing our communities. We're dealing with a lot of problems and it's going to take us a very long time.

The process we've been involved in for the past twenty years is one of negotiating, of developing tools to enable our leaders in our communities to develop programs and begin to take over jurisdiction and control of their citizens again. That is just part of it. The other part is that non-aboriginal authorities and non-aboriginal governments have to relinquish that control. And we have to sit down and talk about it, about how we're going to do it, the best way to go about it and the time lines. We have to form partnerships so that control can be given back to our community people. That's what we're involved in.

But absolutely, without any doubt in my mind, I believe in the Yukon first nations' ability to heal ourselves and our ability to look after our children again, but only if everybody else lets go. That's what we're prepared to do and that's what we're prepared to continue to do for as long as it takes.

.1350

Mr. Ramsay: I thank you very much for that.

On page 6 of your brief you quote Elder Roddy Blackjack. He says ``Our great-grandfather law has been overcome by the Government.'' That's quite clear to me. I understand what he's saying.

It's not only the great-grandfather law in your community that has been overcome by the government. We're hearing that from the non-aboriginal communities as well. When we suggest that parents should be held more accountable for the actions of their children, parents stand up and say they accept that, but they say they want the government to return the authority to be parents to them so they can exercise the discipline within their homes to teach those values, and they want to have those values reinforced when their children go into the schools and into other programs of government. That has been removed. Just as Elder Roddy Blackjack has pointed out, government has encroached upon the authority of all families and has certainly encroached upon the....

I have just a few minutes.... We heard from an aboriginal witness when we were in Manitoba who told this story. Ms Torsney asked him how he would teach parents to be better parents, or I think she brought it up and I asked how that was done traditionally. He showed so clearly to us the common-sense way the aboriginal people used to do it. He drew a circle, marked it off in four, and said that the real wisdom comes in that area with the grandparents because of the years they have lived. The teaching of the children occurred at the hands of the grandparents, while the father was out working and bringing the food in and while the mom was busy in the home. The teaching occurred at the hands of the grandparents. They taught them how to be good parents. They taught them the values and traditions and so on.

So I understand you when you say that has been denied - the expression that you want within your community - by the intervention of government programs in which you have no input whatsoever. I understand that. I think the message we're giving is yes. I don't know how you would handle a dangerous offender. I don't know how you would handle someone who has assaulted or raped or murdered. I think we have to provide the tools for that broad basic outline for you and the court system to deal with.

The justice system has moved into trying to deal with dysfunctional families, but I think it has to come from the social awareness and the social aspect of community. The justice system should be the last resort.

If you have any comments or anything else you'd like to add.... My time is up. I'd like to spend more time with you and ask you more questions. Do you have any comments you'd like to make in response? I'd be pleased to hear them.

Grand Chief Adamson: We absolutely don't expect to be removing dangerous criminals from the criminal justice system. We're certainly cognizant that our children are getting into the system where we can control offences. And that's what we're hearing from the community. That's what we're articulating today. We need to prevent our children from getting entangled in the system in a negative way like they are right now.

Oftentimes when you look at the situations they're facing, in order to even bring some semblance of control over sentencing our children in circle sentencing, they first have to admit they're guilty. That's not a good way of keeping our children and our youths or any of our people out of the system. That's what we are saying. We need to be involved up front. It's going to take a lot of discussion between ourselves and other governments in order for them to be better governments and facilitate the needs and desires of our citizens and our communities.

.1355

The Chair: I think Sandi Gleason had a comment as well.

Ms Gleason: I just wanted to make one comment that's based on what an elder stated. He said it takes a whole community to raise a child, not the criminal justice system. That's why the communities want more input, more choices and more alternatives. It's the community that has to take care of the child because a lot of the time the immediate family might be in crisis and looking for help. We can't give blanket-statement answers to things like that, because we represent eleven first nations, and they might have eleven different answers for their communities.

Mr. Ramsay: Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Maloney, did you have...?

Mr. Maloney: In your presentation you made reference to diversion programs. Because of the criteria, only 30% of youths processed are first nations youths. What are these criteria you're referring to that result in first nations youths not qualifying?

Ms Gleason: The criteria for getting into diversion are a supportive family, ongoing supportive structure.... I can't really remember them all right now because I just went through them this morning when we were looking at some of the criteria. The criteria have been developed already by government, and they're still developing them based upon what they see the needed criteria to be.

A lot of the time the criteria for aboriginal youth is really restricted when we get into these areas. A lot of aboriginal youth aren't considered for these programs because they don't fit the criteria that government has established. What we're asking is this: Because there are so many aboriginal youths going through the criminal justice system as first-time offenders, why aren't they using criteria based upon the aboriginal community and letting us have some input into what those criteria are? The criteria for this diversion program have not been successful with the aboriginal community.

Mr. Maloney: We talk about the problems with the aboriginal community, about them being social problems perhaps more so than legal problems, but we want that community to.... You feel the community would be most beneficial. My question is how this is going to help when you have a dysfunctional family in which the parents are part of the youth's problem. Is there a strong community behind this that will provide the assistance? Do you have the resources, especially human resources? Do you have people who are willing to get involved?

I just heard from one of the earlier witnesses that she was going to go to Haines Junction to become a justice of the peace in order to help the youth justice committee. Do you have committed people who will step forward and help when needed?

Ms Gleason: If you look at Kwanlin Dun, a lot of their services are done on a volunteer basis. In every community you have some form of justice committee that's basically done voluntarily, so you do have the people and the resources available there. But what happens a lot of the time is that this volunteerism runs out, because on many occasions we're dealing with issues a lot of people don't have education or training in.

When government hands us responsibility, it tells us to take it but doesn't give us anything in return for the resource base. We could establish the people, but they don't give us the training or the skills to facilitate the process, so that it becomes a successful program or allows us to successfully deal with an issue. So when you're looking at those sorts of things, I think the people are there, but we're also saying that we need the training and the resources to go along with them, rather than just being given a little piece of the picture.

Mr. Maloney: That's fine.

Grand Chief Adamson: I want to say as well that although the Council of Yukon First Nations formally represents eleven first nations under its umbrella, there are fourteen first nations to which we deliver programs, and seventeen if you include first nations in northern B.C.

.1400

In every one of those first nations there is a fundamental foundation that is very secure. Otherwise, we wouldn't have survived in the face of the difficulties we had to go through - and there are numerous examples of those difficulties, beginning with the justice system, the educational system, and our denial of the vote. All of these things were designed to destroy aboriginal people, but it hasn't happened. We have a very strong foundation in every community. We have very strong elders and we have community leadership that believes in itself. But the opportunity has to be provided, and that's what we have to do.

We have to manage the process so that opportunity is given to them. We're doing it through agreements, we're doing it by making presentations to standing committees such as yours. But we don't profess to want to step into the shoes of government to do what you're doing. We want the first nations and their community governments to have the hands-on approach in developing these processes to deal with their children in conflict with the law. But I do absolutely believe in the ability of Yukon first nations to meet the challenge of looking after their children.

The Chair: Thank you.

Ms Torsney, there are about five minutes left.

Ms Torsney: First of all, Mr. Ramsay attributed to me some questions that were asked in Winnipeg. They sound like questions I would ask, but unfortunately I wasn't in Winnipeg.

I did want to ask you two questions related to the issue of preventing children from even getting into conflict with the law. One of the things we've heard from some people is that they want us to deal with the children who are under 12 through the criminal justice system. I know you have the Mental Health Act in the Yukon. I wonder if it's being used to intervene with children who need help, or to intervene with families who need help for their kids who are under 12.

Secondly, I want to know if you're implementing either parenting skills programs or some other kind of program for all of the children, and not just the children who are in trouble, as part of the process of allowing the communities to heal themselves and to work with the children, particularly prior to them becoming 12 years old.

Also, are you working to teach children about the law? It seems odd to me that in most communities, including my own, children generally learn about the law, the Young Offenders Act, when they're about 17. That's a bit late, because by then they have these very odd or skewed views of the law from what they've learned through the streets. So are they then really breaking it with intention, or have they just not learned it appropriately? I wonder if you can answer that.

I guess I've really asked you three questions there.

Grand Chief Adamson: I think I should say from the outset that first nations people have a different view of the law because we've been treated differently by the law, and we've given you examples.

What we have to do - and again I have to stress that it's something we don't expect to do overnight - is help our people believe in themselves again. We have to help our children believe that they don't have to be in conflict with the law, but we can only do that if we take the steps that need to be taken to provide opportunities for our people to keep their kids out of a situation in which they're going to be in conflict with the law. That means allowing our parents, our community leaders - and communities have natural leaders who are not necessarily those elected to public office - the opportunity, providing them with the opportunity to say to the children that there are other alternatives. That's what we're working on.

It's too early to say at this point whether or not the agreements that we've negotiated are going to be effective and be felt immediately. We need the opportunity to begin to implement some of the agreements that we've negotiated. We need the opportunity to try to put into effect some of the ideas that we have. But again I have to say that we have to form partnerships with those authorities so that they can relinquish their authority and allow our authorities, our ideas and our aspirations to be brought forward.

.1405

That hasn't happened yet. That's why we show you these statistics and say that if the majority of children and individuals incarcerated in the Yukon right now are first nations people, then you have to ask yourself why. What is your government doing wrong? Why is it so easy to incarcerate our people at a cost that's phenomenal, but you can't put forward minimal dollars for us to be able to do what we can to intervene? Why is it acceptable that taxpayers can pay enormous amounts of money to keep our people in jails when they can put them through an education system and help them be productive members of society, whether it's first nation society or Canadian society?

Those are questions you as legislators have to answer because these are questions we as aboriginal leaders, we as Canadians, and we as first nations people are asking. You haven't convinced us, nor has the Government of Canada convinced us, that we should give up the fight to save our children and save our people and keep them out of jail.

We were asked to come forward to make comments on proposed legislation to make it more difficult, and easier for our children to be put into incarceration, be put into custody, by changing legislation. We were asked to contemplate things like that.

The Young Offenders Act is not designed to help us keep our children away from a negative situation with the justice system. It's designed to put them within the justice system earlier. We can't have that. No parent should be able to sit here and say yes, I agree with something like that.

Ms Torsney: Chief Adamson, I guess that's why I'm trying to understand what programs are working, or if you are doing some things with the children who are currently perhaps three years old or seven years old to make sure that they are not part of the justice system, that they do grow up to be healthy individuals.

It's not my intention to see more children incarcerated, but to see that communities are safer and that young people have the chance to be all they can be. So my goal in being a part of this committee to review the Young Offenders Act is to find out where there are successes and where those should be brought, not just into the aboriginal community but perhaps even into my community, to make sure more children stay outside of the system that doesn't seem to help a whole lot of people.

So we are looking for those examples, to be able to highlight those and say maybe more work does need to be done with the 12-year-old and under children; maybe there is another way to deal with this. For instance, some schools have conflict resolution programs where they teach children how to peer mediate, or they teach children parenting so that they can have different options for when they themselves are dealing with children who are younger, and dealing with their own parents, and dealing when they are future parents. So we're also trying to find out if those kinds of programs do exist and if they are working.

It was shocking to learn in Alberta that few children, even the incarcerated ones, are learning parenting skills. What a shame when these kids very probably haven't had the best examples. It's not like one size fits all when it comes to parenting, as those of you who are parents know, but at least get kids some options, especially if their own example hasn't been as positive as possible.

So I wonder if you do have some of those as part of the healing process or as part of the prevention process within your community to make sure that fewer kids.... Quite rightly, you point out the horrifying numbers of how many children have been criminalized. For the kids who are much younger than they are now, how do we make sure they are not part of that system?

I think part of it is by giving them different tools and also making them more aware of perhaps what the system is and why they need to avoid it. Even if it is not perfect, it does exist, and how can we make change in the future to make it less likely that particularly children from your community, but all Canadian children, are not incarcerated?

Grand Chief Adamson: There are a number of programs that exist in each of the communities. That's part of the consultation process - to go straight to the communities, talk to the community people and community leaders.

.1410

There are ad hoc committees; there are ad hoc groups that bring together various meetings and teaching circles and talking circles and healing circles. There are attempts, not concerted efforts on our part, to deal with the issues on a crisis-to-crisis situation. There are groups that put together parenting programs, a number of programs that deal with traditional parenting for men, for women, but we're dependent on organizations like the Skookum Jim Friendship Centre and concerned individuals in the community to be able to provide these to the community. That's part of developing a strategy, to be able to give back to the community leaders the ability to bring together a comprehensive strategy.

All we're asking for is to be able to say up front to our children that they may end up in a situation they've lost control of, because that's how children end up in situations. If it's alcohol-related, it's a situation a child has lost control of. But we should be able to say to our children, there is diversion available to you. You don't have to panic and you don't have to react in a situation where the situation remains out of control. There are alternatives.

We should be able to say to the parents of those children, ``There are alternatives available to you. Your family shouldn't fall apart because of this. You can take control of this situation. We'd like to help you.'' That's what we need to do as communities, is to be able to have the ability to develop comprehensive plans for our families and our communities. But only the communities are going to tell you that.

I can't even begin to describe to you how heartbreaking it is for me to sit across the table from chiefs from the communities and have to watch tears flowing down their cheeks when they describe suicide and suicide attempts in their communities, when their voice is breaking when they're describing children involved in sniffing glue and sniffing gas. I can't begin to describe to you the heartbreak and the helplessness and the hopelessness that these leaders feel when they can't intervene. I couldn't begin to describe them to you because you've never lived like that. You have to live like that and be up against those kinds of challenges before you realize why it is that in spite of all the odds, we're still not giving up on our children and our families and our communities.

The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation and for your assistance.

We'll rise for a few minutes while our next witnesses take their places.

.1413

.1422

The Chair: I call the meeting back to order.

We have before us Linda Biensch, who is an honorary life member of the Block Parent Program of Canada and who's been a volunteer in crime prevention associations in school programs. With her - back again for what I was going to say is a repeat performance, but I think what I mean is an additional contribution - is Sandi Gleason, who sits on the National Crime Prevention Council, Youth Justice Committee, and with the Council of Yukon First Nations and is also the manager of the Native Court Workers Program.

Thank you. We have your brief and I know you'll want to outline that for us and then we'll have some questions.

Ms Linda Biensch (Honorary Life Member, Block Parent Program of Canada, Inc.) Thank you.

Charles Stuart is another member of our committee and he's hoping to join us. He's tied up in classes right now, but he might be joining us later on. I hope he's going to be here for the questions because he has certain experience.

Thank you for the opportunity to present to you this morning. We were three members of a four-person advisory committee struck by the Department of Justice in the spring of 1995. Our mandate was to meet with Yukoners and learn their views on crime prevention, the justice system and the police. We held over 25 meetings in 12 Yukon communities and talked to over 600 Yukoners, including about 300 senior and junior high school students.

As community members ourselves, we were able to listen to what people were saying without having to defend programs, budgets or positions. From what I was hearing earlier on this morning, I think much of what I'll be saying will affirm and support what you've been hearing already, not only locally but certainly across the rest of the country.

.1425

We found that no one had any faith in the young offender system, that Yukoners were very concerned over specific crimes, such as property crime. They felt that offenders were treated either too softly or the sentences missed the mark altogether. One person told us that we need a little more justice in our justice system and a little less law. Yet another person said bitterly, ``They get a slap on the wrist and wave goodbye as they go out the door, giving the judge the finger.''

We were not surprised at these feelings. However, we were surprised by the number of people who spoke strongly about the need for intervention, the need for improved education and employment opportunities, the loss of family and spiritual values, the conditions of drug and alcohol abuse that are not resolved when the offender returns to the community.

One mother told us, ``The kids have been told that to get help for their drug problems they first have to commit an offence. Nobody wants to take responsibility for a kid who wants to get help. As a parent, I still had to fight like hell for help for my son, even after he committed a string of offences. Nobody would do anything before that.''

The concerns we heard fell into three main categories: the system failing to check the spread of crime, the difference between law and justice, and the inability to address the root causes of crime. We heard that a big majority of the youth crime in the Yukon is committed by repeat offenders with pasts characterized by cycles of neglect, abuse, poverty and fear and that young offenders often share these characteristics.

There's a cynicism that not much can be done for these offenders except for whatever programming can support someone's personal decision to go straight. People told us that tinkering with the justice system won't make much of a difference, that unless there's a focus on early intervention there won't be any long-term change in the crime situation.

We heard in community after community that there's an inconsistent interpretation of the provision in the Young Offenders Act regarding the protection of a young offender's identity. Teachers, particularly, were deeply concerned, to the point of anger, at not having information about the students in their classes, especially information on violence-prone offenders. They told us that sharing information among professionals can support the young person as well as reduce victimization of other students. This information sharing seemed to be in place in some communities, depending on the people in the key positions within the community.

We feel definitely that there's a need for education about the provisions of the act for people working with young offenders, so the information sharing and the building of partnerships can provide effective rehabilitative programming as well as supporting the victims.

We heard as well about the need for children to learn about the law, and that is included as one of our recommendations.

To make a long-term difference, we heard repeatedly that we need to establish the partnerships needed to work on the root causes of crime. Turf protection must go. Government departments must cooperate. The volunteer groups need to be aware of what the others are doing. There is much being done; it's just not being done in a coherent fashion. As one man assured us, we are whistling the same tune in different halls.

Schools do have conflict resolution programs. There are peer mentoring programs in the schools. There are strong self-esteem programs. In fact, next week we will be launching a tape for a self-esteem project that we hope will go national. Local artists are writing the music and it will be used to support the program in the schools.

There are nutrition programs. There are teen and parent centres, hoping to break the cycle of some of the crime. An organization called Youth Empowerment and Success is working with at-risk children and supporting them in their ventures. But if we don't have this sort of cooperation and if we don't have knowledge of what each other is doing, there ends up being duplications, inefficiency and waste of financial and human resources.

Other issues that Yukoners raised specific to youth crime and the Young Offenders Act centred around holding young people accountable for their actions in a timely way, involving the community and the justice process, and placing much more emphasis on the victim. We heard that if the consequence of a crime committed by a young offender is not apparent, relevant and immediate, it will not be seen as a consequence. In this case the offenders do not feel they're being held accountable for their actions, victims do not feel that their experience is validated and the community does not see that justice has been served. If the act clearly supports alternative measures involving the communities, some of these issues can be addressed.

Circle sentencing, family group conferencing and community justice committees are such alternate opportunities. A key point is that these alternatives must be applied in a timely way.

.1430

We also heard that during the justice process the victim is often ignored, or suffers further victimization. Could recognition for the rights of victims be given a much higher profile in the Young Offenders Act, perhaps being considered as an underlying principle?

Many of the people we spoke with believe that the names of violent and repeat young offenders should be published. The publication ban, in their eyes, ends up labelling all young people as young offenders. As one teenager said, ``Most of the crime we hear about is youth crime but only a fraction of youth are committing these crimes. This makes it hard on the rest of us, who don't commit crimes. Adults and some stores don't trust us. We're not there to do anything wrong but we're still asked to leave.'' People said clearly that everyone should get one chance, then the name of the offender ought to be published.

The young people also resisted the concept of making parents accountable financially for the crimes of their children, saying it is very likely that those kids who are committing the crimes would commit just to get at their parents. They suggested that the first time a youth gets into trouble the courts should make mandatory family counselling and parenting skill courses part of the sentence.

Of course this is recognizing that not all young offenders have parents or parent figures in their lives. The adults we heard were very strong for parental accountability. They were strongly in favour of supporting parents and allowing parents the responsibility and the accountability to raise their children. They also believed that parents should be held financially accountable for the crimes of their children, and they decried the anonymity granted the violent predatory and repeat young offenders.

When we asked about the children under age 12 committing crimes, the Yukoners we spoke with, both adults and teenagers, were unanimous that parents must be held accountable and that parents should be required to attend parenting and other supportive courses. No one seemed to imply a placing of blame. The comments were very supportive and recognized that many parents have not had the chance to learn parenting skills.

One point that came up in many communities was the concern that people had over the number of children with FAS-FAE who are in the eight-year-old to twelve-year-old group. People asked if the system is ready to handle this. A challenge for the young offender legislation is to be effective for crimes committed by those who are incapable of understanding consequences and who pose a threat to the community.

From our consultations, we believe that any discussions about amending or evaluating the Young Offenders Act must be premised on six basic principles:

1. We must place the highest value on the safety and security of the community.

2. Young people, like all members of society, must be held accountable and assume responsibility for their actions.

3. We must build partnerships among governments, government departments, NGOs and community members to address the root causes of crime.

4. The responsibility of parents needs to be affirmed and supported.

5. We have to balance the rights and responsibilities of all those affected, the young people, the parents and other family members, the victims and the general public.

6. Legislation must reflect the scope of the issues and be sufficiently flexible to respond to community strengths and needs.

We recognize the difficulty in writing any legislation to cover such a complex subject as youth crime. If the safety of the community is held to be paramount, support for victims and the family of offenders is built in and the special and wide-ranging needs of young people in conflict with the law considered, the legislation may be effective. As we were told a number of times, it's time to use some common sense. Common sense must prevail.

We hope that in your recommendations to Minister Rock you'll be able to make concrete suggestions based on the input you have gathered. We hope you do not face the cynicism we faced as we were asked over and over again, ``Why do we need another committee? Your report and recommendations won't change a thing. The justice system is only interested in reacting to crime, not helping to prevent it. So why another dog and pony show? It's a load of crap.''

We thank you again for coming to Whitehorse, even amidst one of the coldest Octobers we've had for a while, and giving us this opportunity to present to you.

The Chair: Thank you.

Did you have something to add at this point, Ms Gleason?

Ms Gleason: No.

The Chair: Mr. St. Laurent, ten minutes.

.1435

[Translation]

Mr. St-Laurent: You talked about the cooperation of resources with quite an eloquent caricature: everyone singing the same song but each in their own corner. That's quite an evocative image.

Why do you need government assistance? Why do you have to have this referred to in legislation when it seems to me that it could be done simply through a large local organization which would coordinate all cooperative efforts regarding young offenders. It would be a sort of large committee that would oversee all of this.

Is that impossible for you right now? Do you need some provision incorporated in the legislation that would facilitate your work in this area? What is your concern regarding the very concept of a committee aimed at solving this problem?

[English]

Ms Biensch: Community coordination is definitely a challenge to the community. When it comes to the Young Offenders Act and the work in the community, that's when alternative measures comes in, and that's what draws on the resources within the community. Many of the communities in the territory, including Whitehorse, have a very restricted volunteer base and a restricted amount of people who are able to work on things such as alternative measures or community work services. It draws more on the people.

So when we're talking about working in parallel, government departments delivering youth justice as well as the volunteer programs need to work together and recognize what each other is doing so they can support it.

Ms Gleason: One problem we face is that a lot of the time different programs will almost duplicate what other committees or agencies are doing. A lot of the time they go to government to do this, and different things get funded. Sometimes, then, they'll get turned away, because somebody's already doing it.

A recommendation made in terms of crime is that governments themselves get their acts straight and get a more coordinated approach towards dealing with proposals or issues that communities are facing. They have already done the coordination committee. They have followed up on those recommendations.

We're saying that's at only one level of government. There are very many other levels of government. You get a lot of bureaucratic problems, being chased from one department to another. What they were looking at when we were speaking to this was a lot more coordination. For instance, if you want to do something, where can you go to do that rather than being passed along the line?

[Translation]

Mr. St-Laurent: I'm putting forward a hypothesis because you mentioned trying to find solutions, bringing together organizations to establish programs that would occupy youngsters. Do you think youngsters are more idle today than they were 20 years ago?

Do you think that idleness is one of the causes of the problem we have with young offenders? According to some data, there are more crimes now but their seriousness is diminishing. But there's still an increase somewhere.

.1440

[English]

Ms Biensch: I'm not sure if we can say that young people are more idle. Our society is so different now. Many of us grew up with two-parent families, and now both people are working. The ``latchkey kid syndrome'', as it's started to be identified across Canada, is significant. This contributes to more at-risk kids.

In the United States at any given point in time you can expect over 20 million children at home alone under age 12. This has significance for the entire society. We don't have...the TV and the violence and the expectation, perhaps, that other people will make activities happen. I think children have in some ways lost the ability to play spontaneously. I think we as a society have not allowed them places to play.

I remember one community meeting where grade eight and nine kids said, ``Do you suppose we could have a field where we could just play soccer?'' There are limited locations for them in the town for spontaneous play.

I think in many ways we as adults and as grandparents have tightened up the structure on our kids so much that they require to be organized at all steps in their life. I don't believe they're more idle. If anything, they're overstructured.

Ms Gleason: To take that one step further, when we were travelling around to the communities we met in one area with grade 12 students. A lot of times they wanted to put forward proposals for, for instance, their own community youth centre, based upon their rules - a whole structure different. They did, but they came into conflict with the adults in the community. They needed support to get the proposals done. There were different things like that. I'm sure they've worked out the problem, but that's just one example where youth feels there's just nothing for them.

When you go into Carcross tomorrow, look around and see what there is for youth to really do in Carcross. Is there a youth centre? Is there a place for the kids to gather?

Another concern brought out when we went across the Yukon is that there are a lot of adult facilities such as bars and dances, and a lot of adult-coordinated activities, but a lot of the times these youths are waiting for those adults to finish their activities. They wait around at bars for them. A lot of activities like that are going on.

So they're not so much idle as looking for more negative ways to have fun rather than just having social functions for youth. That came out quite clearly in the community we were dealing with when we were speaking to them in that one area.

[Translation]

Mr. St-Laurent: How do you see the role of police officers? I think that various approaches have been put forward at various points. People said that police forces should have a somewhat more positive approach, a more social role concerning young criminals who commit minor offences, petty theft.

Do you feel that the role of police officers should be more social in nature - I'll use that term because I can't think of another one - in order to bring back the youth into his family rather than before the courts? I'm not saying this should always be the case. Nor am I saying that this should be done for all crimes listed in the Criminal Code. I'm talking about petty theft, property crimes that are deemed to be minor.

.1445

[English]

Ms Biensch: I very much agree with you there. It's happening across the Yukon, I believe. Police officers posted into these smaller areas are the hockey coaches. They're the ones who organize the Hallowe'en parties. In one community the police have organized a Hallowe'en party for ten or twelve years now. They do solid, proactive community development work in their communities.

Some of the police are indeed doing the pre-charge diversion-type thing you're talking about. I can speak from personal experience there. My son was beaten up in a school yard situation, and the police officer came and spoke to the family and the child, saying that now that he is 12, he should be aware of the consequences. So they were doing very good work in bringing social values to their policing.

.1450

The Whitehorse detachment is already trying to go in that direction. The police officer is taking more responsibility about the case in front of him. In the small rural communities, in many ways the police officers can be the backbone of the sports, of the karate or whatever sport is going on.

[Translation]

Mr. St-Laurent: Thank you very much. That will be all for now.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Ramsay, ten minutes.

Mr. Ramsay: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you for your presentation this morning.

I'd like to turn to your second page. You don't have them numbered, at least on my copy, but right at the bottom of the page you state that ``turf protection must go''.

When we were in Alberta we heard from a witness who described a very successful diversion program that was administered in one part of northern Alberta. The crown prosecutor shut it down. This business of turf protection is a very serious issue to me. In order to bring about the changes that I think are needed...for example, if we were able to bring home that message.... If we were able to reduce crime in general by 50%, including juvenile and adult crime, how many jobs would be eliminated within the justice industry? We have very strong vested interests - and they have appeared before this committee - that will fight against successful diversion programs, successful programs that will keep children as well as adults out of the system.

Let me give you just a quick example. We were at the Sydney Mines facility outside of Sydney, Nova Scotia. They have an excellent educational program where they've picked up children who have fallen through the cracks - and these are teenagers - and developed a course of study around their level of academic understanding. They give them the tutoring to get them up to speed. We heard testimony from some of those children that was very encouraging. On the way out to the bus I said to the manager, ``If you're able to expand this program across the country, I think you're going to get some resistance to what you're doing.'' He said that it is there already.

We have created institutions within the justice system that we've lost control of, in my humble opinion, and they take on a life of their own. Rather than serving us, they're serving themselves.

I spent fourteen years in the Mounties. I remember the day when we were called upon to use the public to generate the statistics that we needed for more manpower, more equipment and so on, so that we could even get a day off back in those days. The only thing Treasury Board would accept was a statistic.

.1455

So instead of stopping you after you go through a stop sign, to see whether you're impaired or whether everything is okay, and telling you to mind the laws a little bit closer - because the stop signs are there for a reason - and letting you go on your way, instead of serving you and your community, I begin to use you and I write you a ticket. Who cares what the cause is? Who cares whether it's really an incident that would warrant a court appearance? We needed the statistics to satisfy the federal Treasury Board. It's been going on ever since...the statistics that we need. The justice system is living off....

I remember going to a diversional program in Quebec City fifteen years ago. One aboriginal individual stood up at the last session, the plenary session, and said that the aboriginal people are a renewable resource for the criminal justice system.

You make just a very brief reference to this whole area when you say that turf protection must go. If we can develop community programs that will keep our youth out of the justice system, don't you agree that there will perhaps be an obstacle to the cooperation of our front-line people who are our police officers? Do you see resistance? Have you seen any resistance to diversional programs, to sentencing-circle programs and so on? In other words, do you see any resistance to programs that would keep the youth from getting too far into the system?

Ms Biensch: From the community's perspective, no, because I think the fact that the cost of crime is far too high been so well documented in the last two or three or four years. Sandi's national crime prevention experience will bear this out. Too many people working within the justice system and within the health and social services systems are saying that we can't afford this any more. They're seeing the human cost. We are seeing that. Unfortunately, I think it's come down to the point where it's bottom-line-driven.

I think for a long time very progressive people have recognized there was a human cost throughout, but now it's come down to recognizing that we can't afford this any more.

Yes, there's going to be resistance to these changes. In the territory we're very fortunate. Because it's small, we do know each other. We do know the situation more intimately and we can't shuffle things off as perhaps they can in a larger jurisdiction. There may be resistance, but I think in some ways we can go more progressively into areas a larger jurisdiction would have difficulties with.

What we found so overwhelming was the number of Yukoners who so clearly recognized it. They were so darned tired of having one department come in with one program and having that paralleled by another department coming in the next time. That was very clearly identified.

Within larger systems, perhaps Sandi has....

Ms Gleason: When you're talking about resistance, I think everybody's afraid to change. When you're looking at change, who are you giving that control to?

I know that in a couple of the aboriginal communities here they are fighting and resisting the change because they want more control and more say in their destiny. We've found that a lot of the time that choice or that decision doesn't come so readily, and there is resistance to it.

There are also people who want to set guidelines and boundaries for what we're doing. When you're looking at change and resistance.... They want some sort of controlling mechanism put into some of the things we're doing in the community. In some areas, people aren't very ready to just hand over some of their responsibilities to the community. They're hanging on to it in some way or fashion, and inadvertently they try to control things like circle sentencing or community-based alternatives. There is some resistance there. It does happen.

As Linda said, you need to talk to a lot of these people and keep trying to work it out. I know in the aboriginal communities they have faced that.

Mr. Ramsay: Thank you.

.1500

Turning to another point, do you feel that it is the responsibility of the justice system to strengthen the family economically, socially or spiritually, or should that be a program outside of the justice system?

What I see happening is that the traditional role of the justice system has been altered. It is the final program of government that protects the security and the safety of society. After all other systems have failed, then that's the final system, the final program of government.

Over the years I think what has happened is that the justice system has turned into a dual system, part justice and part social welfare, doing neither job well. So, really, should the justice system be responsible for the strengthening of families and dealing with the problems that are creating dysfunctional families? Or should it be another program of government that's separate from the justice system, but perhaps works in concert with it? Do you have any comments on that?

Ms Biensch: I think you're very right in that, because any time a government becomes involved with something as social as a family or the human needs of a child, I don't think the government can do a good job with that. When all else has failed, I believe - and I'll talk about my personal feeling rather than the committee now - there are.... The justice system and the health and social services system has interfered so long with family that now it has assumed some of those responsibilities.

I think it becomes a little bit of a turf thing. The justice system has to recognize where its boundaries are and say that is not something that is appropriate for them to be dealing with, and this is where else it could be better handled.

When we were talking about financial accountability, it was putting the case more in a civil suit where the victim could sue, or whatever. Or restitution would be another key one to bring some sort of accountability. I think it boils down to accountability in that particular thing. Jails don't create accountability in some people's situation. Having to go and cut wood for someone for six months is something.

Sandi, do you want to add something?

Ms Gleason: I don't think we ever really clearly defined what the criminal justice system's role is. The thing is, it just gets more responsibility placed on it, like Linda has said. When you look at roles and what role it should play, I don't think that will be clearly answered until we find out what role communities can play.

What can the communities do? As a person from a community, what can we do to alter what's happening in the criminal justice system? What can we do to work with our family issues? When we're looking at that, at some point we are going to need a criminal justice system role, because I have worked in jails where I have seen people whose behaviour you cannot change. But you have to remember where these adults came from. The majority of the guys I worked with came from group homes, they moved into the young offenders facility, and then they moved on to WCC, the Whitehorse Correctional Centre. It's an institutionalized system. Once you get these people caught up in it, it seems like they can't beat that revolving cycle.

When we're looking at traditional justice, it wasn't a department unto itself. Traditional justice was a role that played within society. We governed our own people so that every person knew what the punishment would be: you would have to face your community for what you had done. Now we don't. We face judges and lawyers and doctors, and it's who's going to win and who's going to lose, and you're in this battle.

I can think of one case in particular, where this aboriginal mother took her kid to court and the kid didn't want her to come in with the lawyer. He wouldn't let her in there. She was really upset because she as a mother had her role taken away, of trying to make her child responsible for the crime he committed. He ended up going and entering a not-guilty plea and taking it to trial. He beat the charge because of a technicality. The mother wanted the child to plead guilty so that he could be accountable for what he had done, but the criminal justice system didn't teach him that.

I think there's a role when we're looking at these roles. What do parents want? They should have a say in this because they have a vested interest. They're the ones who are trying to raise these children. The criminal justice system should be a support to those parents rather than a hindrance.

.1505

Mr. Ramsay: Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Maloney.

Mr. Maloney: In your opening remarks you indicated how the people you surveyed wanted us to get tough on crime, wanted more justice in our justice system than giving them a slap on the wrist only to have them give the finger to the judges, etc. We also heard earlier this morning that the Yukon has the highest custodial rate of all provinces and territories. How do you reconcile the two, the perception and the reality? You're advocating alternative measures. I also advocate them, but although they may be effective, alternative measures are often perceived as soft.

Ms Biensch: Yes, that's so much the case. If anything, I think people were frustrated, and it wasn't with the first-time offenders. It wasn't my sense that people were frustrated with what the first-time offenders got - and of course that's where much of the diversion is applied. It's not on the first-time offenders, it's on the repeat offenders. People have just had it up to here with getting their truck stolen twice in a week and having the kid back on the street in 24 hours. They are frustrated with the whole accountability question.

I think you could probably almost divide this into separate sections: the first-time offenders who are dealt with through a lot of the alternative measures programs, and the repeat ones. From the people who were talking, my sense was that they were saying consistently that for first-timers, everybody gets a chance. After that, though, justice has to be seen to have been served. I think you could therefore split that in your mind somewhat. People were talking about the repeat offenders, such as the ones Sandi was referring to, who are caught up in this revolving cycle. The frustration comes to people on the street because they don't know what to do, so they say to get tough with them.

Mr. Maloney: In your presentation you also made reference to a lack of communication, to duplication, to overlapping resources, like money and things done twice. Are we looking at, or should we be looking at, combining perhaps our youth justice system with our social welfare, our health, and our education systems? What brings that to mind is that in Yellowknife, the Minister of Justice is also the Minister of Social Services, etc. Should we be going that way?

Ms Biensch: It's certainly something that we.... In fact one of our recommendations was that they look at combining some of the departments, whether it's justice and youth justice or whatever, but combine them so that there isn't an overlapping of services. I hadn't heard people talking about health, social and youth. That's already one department here anyway, under one minister. For instance, the Minister of Education is currently the same person responsible for health and social. Maybe there'll be some cooperation there because schools, of course, are where a lot of these kids are first identified as being in need of additional help. If we can intervene at the school-age level, we could make a difference. There's already a structure in place for it, so maybe it's a place where we could go with that.

Ms Gleason: I just wanted to make the comment, too, that education is crucial in this whole process. I don't think people in the general public realize what's really going on with the criminal justice system. They don't realize that the small percentage of people committing the crimes are reoffenders. A lot of the time when they're looking at this whole thing, they want more and more punishment, but the thing is that we're punishing the same people over and over again. We're just giving them longer and longer times. What we're doing is spending an inordinate amount of resources on a small percentage of people while the general population, among which we could be preventing a lot of these crimes, isn't getting those resources. So what we're finding is that we have to educate people on what's happening in the criminal justice system and on where we can make the biggest changes.

In the criminal justice system, where we could make the biggest change is in actually preventing youths from committing crimes in the first place. If we start doing that, if we start putting that education out there, if we start getting communities to work with that, we're going to see a difference. You're not going to have the number of people going through the criminal justice system that you do now, and at some time and some point you may not need it except for very serious offences.

.1510

We have to change the way in which we look at things, we have to look at the preventative and educational aspects. And when we are looking at these things, alternate measures have to be considered. A lot of people say they are a slap on the wrist, but they aren't. If you look at alternative measures in say a place like Kwanlin Dun, a person who went for sentencing in Kwanlin Dun for a first impaired would have to do what's in the Criminal Code, plus he would have to do additional work. He has to live by a plan that they've created, so he has to do more than what comes out of the criminal justice system. He has to do more, but it's more towards work in his community.

I think it's a perceptional thing, in that we have to start educating people on these aspects, because we're just shooting ourselves in the foot. What are you going to do when all the jails are full and we're spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to keep these people in jail? We could be paying for four years of university for these youths who we keep in a young offenders facility for one year. A hundred thousand dollars could put these youths through university rather than keeping them locked up in a facility for one year.

Mr. Maloney: Are there certain situations when alternate measures should not be used?

Ms Gleason: I think that depends on the community. You can't just say who or what. It needs to be somewhat flexible, because if we say who can come and who can't, a lot of time the ones who can't are the ones who are really in need, the ones who really need the help. If we don't hit those who need the help and get them some sort of proper assistance in getting their lives back on track, we're missing the whole boat. A lot of the time, the ones who go through the program aren't the ones in need of support. They aren't the ones needing some counselling and intervention in their lives.

The majority of the time when we look at these things, if we aren't hitting the population that we need to be getting to, we're still going to have crime problems with youth forever. This is going to keep going. So when you look at them and decide who can come in and who can't, it should depend on the community and be their choice.

Mr. Maloney: In your presentation in the last session I think you referred to wilderness camps, and you said there is a whole list of other alternate measures. Can you give me some specific examples?

Ms Gleason: A thing like diversion, in criteria that meet the aboriginal context, is an example, but I'm not just speaking about aboriginals here. The communities could come forth with wilderness camps to which they could send their youths. The youths would be properly monitored and they could do some training with them. And there are also alternative measures such as good community-based resources and training.

Using alternative measures means giving the community the resources so that they can start dealing with their own fundamental problems. Having alternative measures could mean having qualified counsellors to deal with the sexual abuse that's happening in our communities, or to deal with the training and the treatment of people. So in actuality, what you're looking at is turning a community into something like a treatment centre that has a plan or a strategy to see how it could effectively deal with what it wants to deal with.

Mr. Maloney: Finally, I just want to thank you for the recommendation that you made in your report.

The Chair: Thank you, and I just note for the record that we do have a copy of your report and we appreciate that very much. It will be circulated to committee members.

Ms Torsney, there are two minutes left. I'm going to hold you to them because I've let this get out of control and we're behind. It's my fault.

Ms Torsney: First of all, I want to commend you for your efforts. It seems that I have been agreeing with you the whole time, particularly when you were at the top of page three and were mentioning some of the different programs you are doing: working with children to be healthier and whole; working on self-esteem, peer mediation, and parenting skills. All those things are so important for all children, let alone the children who are in trouble.

To pick up on something that you mention at the bottom of page one, in terms of prevention and what's happening with children under 12 in the use of the Mental Health Act, you said that no one will provide help, particularly in cases where parents are saying they know their child needs help. How do we get help for the child before somebody is a victim in our community? To me, those are the most distressing cases of all, yet they happen all over this country. Are you getting anywhere in trying to use the other tools that are in the government's hands in terms of the Mental Health Act or in terms of other child welfare legislation that would allow for intervention and that demand intervention with those under 12?

Ms Gleason: From what I've heard through Health and Social Services, there are very good programs under this, and they're mostly under the Children's Act and so on.

.1515

It's a fact that because of budgeting, they have to tighten down their entry requirements. They can't open things up as broadly as they would perhaps want to. I don't have a sense at all that this is the will of the department or the will of the people who are working in it. It's just completely based on financial restrictions.

I want to go beyond that, of course. I want to have more EAs in the schools working with the kids. I want to have, perhaps, social workers in the schools so that they can work with the kids and identify them right off the bat, before they even get to the point where they need to have that sort of intensive programming.

As a result of a whole wave of public involvement, commitment and comments that seemed to hit right around the same time as our report came out, and as a result of the government response to them, I think there has been a lot of talking and a lot of sharing of information among the various government departments. I haven't heard anything concrete about it, but I know the will is there. I'm not sure that the next step has been taken, though.

Ms Torsney: People have to realize that it's pay now or pay later. In times of deficits and everything, and with everybody wanting tax relief, they have to realize that perhaps it's cheaper to spend on kids by intervening beforehand in the less expensive programs, rather than waiting until there is a victim and a criminal. They have to realize that the treatment programs inside the setting of the youth justice centre are that much more expensive and less likely to be successful.

Good luck.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms Torsney.

Thank you very much for your participation. We appreciate it.

We'll just rise for a couple of minutes while we try to pull together our next....

I'm sorry, I'm being given instructions here that our next witness will appear in camera. I'll also just let you know that we're going to the community of Kwanlin Dun this afternoon, and we'll be leaving from here at 1:30 p.m. I should tell you - and the public will be interested in knowing too - that we have made some arrangements to meet with representatives of the government while we're at the centre this afternoon.

So we'll just rise for a bit in order to get organized. This is an in camera session, which means that the public will be excluded.

Thank you.

[Proceedings continue in camera]

Return to Committee Home Page