[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, June 6, 1996

.1307

[English]

The Chair: We have before us Dan Newman, MPP for Scarborough Centre.

I just want to say that we were encouraged to come here today by our federal member of Parliament for this area. I neglected to point out that Mr. Wappel, who is not here because he is out of the country, is represented ably by Peter, who he's sent here from Ottawa to keep an eye on us today. We welcome Peter, and if people want to have a word with him, they can.

We have until 1:45 p.m. Actually, I'll probably cut you a little short on that, because we have private citizens who want to speak, and we view this more as their forum than yours since you already have one at Queen's Park. Because of the nature of the subject matter, we're having trouble with running behind. People have a lot to say about it. If you go ahead, I just caution you to leave time so members can ask questions.

Mr. Dan Newman (MPP for Scarborough Centre, Legislative Assembly of Ontario): Thank you, Chair. I do disagree with some of your comments, but I will leave that for later.

The Chair: This is a democracy, but I can tell you that you would not have been put on the list if there had been another private presenter.

Mr. Newman: That's nice to know. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Thank you for the invitation to appear before the committee. Thank you for working with my office and staff to ensure that the committee visited Scarborough, Ontario.

In my statements today I will focus on specific changes to the Young Offenders Act that my constituents wish to see the federal government make. It is my submission on their behalf that the Young Offenders Act has been a failed experience that has completely lost the confidence of the public, of the police and of young people themselves.

As a lifelong resident of Scarborough Centre, I've had the opportunity to witness first-hand the drastic change in the criminal activities of young people over the past number of years. Over the past few years I have been shocked and sickened by the frequency and the brutality of youth crimes across Metro Toronto and across our nation.

The types of crimes that young people are now committing are savage, brutal, horrific crimes that no one could ever have imagined young people committing only a few years ago. And the frequency of these crimes is on the rise. The rise in crime, especially violent crime perpetrated by youths, is most definitely real. The federal government and special interest groups may present statistics in such a way as to portray the opposite, but my constituents, our police and our school principals know what they see on a daily basis.

.1310

That is why I have come before you, not with statistics that can be twisted and turned, but with the realities of how my community and my constituents feel. Too many of my constituents are telling me they are afraid for their safety and the safety of their children.

Crime, especially youth crime, is the issue that is most on the minds of my constituents, and let me tell you I am no different. I am a father in this community and it concerns me too.

I've spent a great deal of time over the past year speaking with and patrolling with the great police officers of Scarborough and I feel obliged to speak out on their behalf today to say what they may not be able to say.

To question whether youth crime has increased and has become more violent is outrageous to them. The officers I spoke with have told me that there is absolutely no question in their view: violent youth crime has increased dramatically over the last ten years. The cases that make the newspapers are only the tip of the iceberg. The public would be even more outraged, say officers, if they saw what the police see every day.

My constituents are demanding action from all levels of government. They are demanding bold, strong and swift action that will send the message to young people that if they commit violent crimes they will have to pay a very heavy price.

Youth crime is an issue that must be addressed now in order to prevent future crime and to end a terrible waste of human potential. During the past year as MPP for Scarborough Centre, I've had the opportunity to speak with a great many people about youth crime, and almost everyone I have spoken with - be it the police, residents, teachers, principals or young people themselves - has told me they are tired of politicians and others continuing to debate the problem.

They have told me that we need to stop debating and stop analysing and start looking for real and lasting solutions as to how we need to deal with these young criminals and how we can prevent youth from setting down this criminal path in the future.

My constituents, like many across this nation, are fed up with politicians who fail to act on their constituents' wishes and act simply for their own or for some loud special interest agenda. My constituents have been demanding real changes to the Young Offenders Act, not simple tinkering with the system, like Bill C-37.

Although the changes brought forward in Bill C-37 were somewhat positive and were a step in the right direction, they were in the end simply government tinkering instead of fixing. Government tinkering and bandaid solutions do not effectively improve public protection and do not adequately address the widespread public dissatisfaction with the existing youth justice system, nor do they rectify the gross inequity of allowing the rights of the criminal to supersede the rights of the victim and the rights and safety of the public.

In the youth justice system the scales of justice are tipped in favour of the criminal. Only real substantive changes to the Young Offenders Act will have an effect on youth crime in this country. With the jurisdiction for the Young Offenders Act in your hands as federal politicians, it falls on your shoulders to ensure that you bring about the changes the taxpayers want. It is time to stop listening to bleeding-heart special interests and time to start acting on the wishes of the public.

Changes to the Young Offenders Act have taken far too long because politicians in Ottawa insist on continuing to debate the problem instead of acting to solve it. And with each day, as you choose not to act, more and more crimes are being committed by young criminals who are laughing at our laws.

The federal government, Prime Minister Chrétien and Justice Minister Rock must become committed to bringing about effective change to this legislation. In a letter to me dated May 16 of this year I was told that:

Canadians want action on youth crime, particularly violent crime. The public wants to feel confident that the justice system will respond effectively to prevent further criminal activity when young people break the law. We also want to ensure that victims are always treated fairly and with respect.

I agree completely with the author, Justice Minister Allan Rock. I challenge Minister Rock to live up to his word, what he wrote to me in that letter. Canadians do want action on youth crime that will restore a feeling of confidence and safety to society. Minister Rock, my constituents expect you to deliver.

As I said in the beginning of my presentation, I'm here to bring forth the specific changes to the Young Offenders Act that my constituents have been demanding.

My first recommendation is that a young offender be redefined as a person aged 14 years or under, and that persons aged 15, 16 and 17 be considered adults in the criminal justice system. I believe, as do my constituents, that youths aged 15, 16 and 17 years are old enough to assume full responsibility for their crimes. Therefore, in all cases they should receive an adult sentence.

While a number of academics and youth justice professionals have called for maintaining the maximum age for young offenders of 17 years and have suggested that other legislative changes are not needed, there can be no denying that violent offences against the person by young people have increased dramatically since the introduction of the Young Offenders Act.

Young people are always calling on society to treat them like the young adults that they are. My recommendation does just that.

My second recommendation is for the minimum age at which a young person can be charged with a crime to be reduced from the current 12 years of age to 10 years of age, and that in the case of violent crime the minimum age requirement be scrapped altogether.

The most glaring problems with the Young Offenders Act are that it sets arbitrary age levels and that it does not differentiate between the types of crimes committed by youths. Violent crime has no age. There should not, and cannot, be an arbitrary line drawn by the justice system below which you do not have to be responsible for violent crimes. These crimes are so heinous and perverse to our society that a child of any age must know that it is totally reprehensible and intolerable.

My third recommendation is for violent crimes to be removed from the Young Offenders Act and that all youths charged with violent crimes be automatically tried as adults. Canada only needs one set of laws for violent crimes, not three.

As a parent of a young daughter, I'm frustrated to think that if the current youth justice system remains in place, I will have to teach my daughter three sets of rules when it comes to violent crime. You may murder, if you want, before the age of 12, because laws don't apply to you. Don't commit murder between ages 12 to 17 or you might get into some trouble. But if you do get into trouble, it's okay, because nobody will know you did it. Finally, once you are 18 years old, don't murder, because adults who murder can be locked away for life.

What I want is to be able to tell my daughter not to murder; if she does, she will pay a very heavy price. Nobody should be shielded from justice if they commit a violent crime.

My next recommendation is one that goes back to my earlier comment on how the scales of justice in the youth system have become tipped in favour of the criminal. I recommend that the legislation be changed to allow the publication of names and offences of young people charged with a crime.

The Young Offenders Act was not created to shield criminals from society; however, not only has the act shielded young criminals from society, it has shielded their parents as well by taking away parental responsibility. Maybe if the parents of these young hoodlums were brought out into the public eye they would be keener to take up their parental responsibilities.

My fifth recommendation stems from my discussions with local police who stressed to me that one of their gravest concerns is the problem of repeat young offenders. These are hardened, seasoned criminals who use and abuse the system to their own gain.

I recommend to you that legislation be created that would implement a ``three strikes and you're out'' policy, requiring that after two offences a youth be tried automatically as an adult should he or she commit a third offence.

At the beginning of my presentation, I submitted to you that the Young Offenders Act was a failed attempt. Perhaps I wouldn't view it as such if the first offence for young criminals was their last offence. Unfortunately, many of my constituents who work with young criminals say that this, however, isn't the reality. The reality is that many young offenders are also repeat offenders.

.1320

My next recommendation is that legislation should mandate drug and alcohol programs for youths charged with drug and alcohol offences. As we all are aware, in today's society drugs and alcohol are one of the major contributors to youth crime. It is in the best interests of the public to see that young offenders are rehabilitated into productive members of society.

There should be no choice for young offenders but to participate in programs aimed at straightening their lives out. Young offenders need to be sent the message that should they choose to act outside society's laws, the public will mandate to them the rules for re-entering society. One of those rules must be to clean themselves up first.

My final recommendation is that paragraph 11(4)(b) of the Young Offenders Act, which requires that Ontario provide legal aid to all youths, regardless of their family's financial situation, be removed and be replaced with the same laws as apply to adult legal aid requests. By young offenders being placed under the same legal aid rules as adult offenders, more of the responsibilities are placed on the family and parents of the young offenders and not on the public. Society is sick and tired of being responsible for every young person. The public wants parental responsibilities to be the cornerstone of any plan to deal with youth crime.

In closing today, I want to share with the committee members my disappointment in what seem to be political games coming out of these hearings. The topic of these hearings is a most serious one and political rhetoric has no place within these hearings. Youth crime has no political loyalties.

I am here today as a parent and as the MPP for the riding of Scarborough Centre in order to convey to you the concerns and recommendations of my community and to search for solutions to youth crime. I have no hidden political agenda, and I trust none of you do either.

I wish to thank the committee for allowing the residents of Scarborough Centre, through me, to have a voice here today. I look forward to your questions.

The Chair: Thank you.

I would like to acknowledge the presence of Jim Karygiannis at the table. Jim also assisted in arranging for us to come here.

Mr. Langlois, ten minutes.

[Translation]

Mr. Langlois (Bellechasse): Thank you for your presentation, Mr. Newman. Your demands are very clear and very specific. I will abstain from commenting; but I will recall your comments for my thinking when we prepare our recommendations.

In my view, as regards crime, there is necessarily a link between the application of federal jurisdictions over criminal offenses and treatment of the accused, and the application of provincial jurisdictions, which can mean that there are fewer accused people and that rehabilitation is easier.

As a provincial legislator, how do you view the application of provincial legislation in the areas of education, social assistance, the treatment of children, alcoholism and other addictions? As a legislator, what would you recommend Ontario and perhaps other provinces do so that at the end of the line, fewer people, whether they be 10, 12 or 14 years old, end up before the courts, so that they can be dealt with at a younger age and so that there can be follow up? What resources should be provided to people who are in difficulty and to single mothers who are grappling with certain problems?

In other words, tell me a little bit about how this fits in with the common sense revolution.

[English]

Mr. Newman: Thank you.

To the question, you are obviously talking about reducing intake into the justice system. I believe diversion programs do have a place. So does education. The family and the role of parents obviously have to be taken into account.

.1325

On the question of resources to allow that, if spending money was the answer, then we wouldn't have any problems within the justice system today.

You also mentioned the common sense revolution. You touched on social assistance and child care. What the common sense revolution deals with are hope, growth, and opportunity. In Ontario we have a $100 billion debt. We're spending $1 million more per hour than we take in. This incredible debt load has been a huge burden on families, individuals, and our young people. It's not just Ontario's debt; it's the federal debt as well. It takes its toll. It has its toll on the economy; it takes away jobs.

We want to make sure that we can bring back hope and opportunity to Canada's youth.

[Translation]

Mr. Langlois: I understand what you are saying, but I feel I am not really in a position to comment, and I would not want to get involved in Ontario's business. You have to make your own budgetary choices. It seems to me, however, that when you make political choices based on a single variable, such as debt reduction, and you make that your only focus, you will necessarily abandon the rest. There may be a more balanced approach. It is possible to fight the debt, which leaves us no choice, while sparing other values.

I understand that your point of view may differ from mine. You campaigned on a different platform. We will see the results at the end of the day, but as a federal legislator, I am not ready to follow what you're advocating and to put all my eggs in the same basket. It is not easy to make economic and social choices, but you can't choose one over the other - both must be dealt with at the same time.

I would, however, like to thank you for your frank responses, Mr. Newman.

That was a comment, and not a question.

[English]

Mr. Newman: You talk about budgetary choices that we make and that you make in Ottawa. I didn't run just on reducing the debt. I ran on a platform of jobs, 725,000 jobs in Ontario, a plan that would create those jobs. So I disagree with your comment about doing things solely to reduce the debt. That's part of it, but the goal is jobs. I campaigned on jobs for Ontario, jobs for our young people.

Mr. Gallaway (Sarnia - Lambton): Mr. Newman, the members of this committee take this very seriously, and I'm very disappointed in your statement that you think we're playing political games. Yet you come here and tell us that maybe the Prime Minister and Justice Minister Rock should get serious about this legislation. I want to assure you that we're serious about this legislation, and I suggest to you that your comments and what you are suggesting in your written brief are just as much a political game - and I don't know where the political games have been played to this point. This is just an observation.

You make a comment about the previous legislation being just tinkering with the system. Are you aware that the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police appeared before this committee and said they thought that legislation was just what the doctor ordered? You're calling it tinkering; others, experts, chiefs of police, disagree.

Mr. Newman: They represent the chiefs of police. I think if you talk to the actual officer on the street... If you haven't had the opportunity - I'm sure you have - to go out with your local police officers to see what they have to deal with... I've done it in my community, and the officer on the street in a car or on foot or on a bicycle will tell you something far different from what the chief will.

.1330

Mr. Gallaway: You're telling us, then, that you are the person who's representing the reality - that the individual officer or officers in a community represent the reality. We are here to talk about the realities.

You're telling me that violent crime has been increasing and that you know that because your community is telling you that; your police officers are telling you that. Yet with respect to homicides amongst young offenders, for example, the evidence - I'm talking now about the evidence - would suggest that that has been decreasing. How do you explain it?

Mr. Newman: I'm sure you know, Mr. Gallaway, that you can present figures in any way you wish to present a point, and I could do likewise. But when I'm out there speaking with my constituents at events or, as I was this morning, knocking on doors in my spare time, I can tell you that's not what they're saying. It's a real problem. Now -

Mr. Gallaway: Okay. So the realities are different.

Mr. Newman: - the reason I know, Mr. Gallaway, is that I've lived in this community all of my life. I was born and raised in Scarborough, and that's where I've chosen to raise my family, and I'll tell you - you talk to the gangs and that - youth crime and crime in general is not a partisan issue.

Mr. Gallaway: I agree.

Mr. Newman: Thank you.

Mr. Gallaway: Let's talk about arbitrariness, because we are here to deal with reality. You present to us a certain reality as you see it from your riding. We are federal people and we have to look at the national perspective.

I want to ask you if you believe that the purpose of the Young Offenders Act is to present a strong message. Is the sole purpose of the Young Offenders Act deterrence?

Mr. Newman: You'll notice I didn't say ``repeal the Young Offenders Act.'' The way I view the act is that it would work if a youth's first crime was their last crime. If that were the case, if that was what was happening, we wouldn't be having these hearings today. People in my community and across Canada would not be upset about it.

In my opinion, one repeat offender is one repeat offender too many. Once the system is such that a youth's first offence is their last offence, then it has worked, and that reduces the intake into the justice system. If we can toughen the Young Offenders Act - and I didn't say scrap it; I said toughen it - then I believe we would reduce the number of repeat offenders. And that is the real problem: we're talking about repeat young offender numbers of over 50%.

Mr. Gallaway: Okay.

Mr. Newman: As I said, children in this country cannot be brought up to know that there are three sets of laws. One set of laws is fine.

Mr. Gallaway: All right. My question was, do you believe that the objective is deterrence? Is it ``get tough''? Is that what you're saying?

Mr. Newman: The objective of the Young Offenders Act is that if a youth is charged with a crime, it be their last crime - the last crime they can commit.

Mr. Gallaway: So there is an element of deterrence, and there's an element of rehabilitation.

Mr. Newman: Sure.

Mr. Gallaway: Okay. The reason I ask that is because Mr. Harnick and Mr. Runciman appeared before this committee and said the sole reason is deterrence. You're also acknowledging that rehabilitation is part of it.

Mr. Newman: Yes.

Mr. Gallaway: What about prevention? Is that part of it?

Mr. Newman: As I indicated earlier in my comments, education obviously is part of it.

Mr. Gallaway: To get on to the whole point of education, we've had a number of people, albeit experts, appear before us who have said early identification is the crucial part of this. We visited a couple of sites yesterday where in fact that is occurring, but they were telling us that funding is being cut by the Province of Ontario. The educators are telling us it's crucial that in the early years the tools be available.

What is the provincial government going to do about prevention, in terms of early identification and early intervention, to help those who are at high risk?

Mr. Newman: We talk about identifying those at risk or young criminals and you haven't got them in the justice system. If there's a problem before age 12, then you're not dealing with the problem.

Mr. Gallaway: You can't deal with the problem in the school? Is that what you're telling me?

Mr. Newman: You can't ask the schools to do everything.

Mr. Gallaway: Okay. Your theory, then, is that you have to get them into the criminal justice system to deal with them.

Mr. Newman: No. I didn't say that.

Mr. Gallaway: Well, that's what I'm asking you.

Mr. Newman: What I said was, when they're only entering the criminal justice system at age 12 - if someone has been committing crimes and they can't be charged until age 12, then you're not dealing with them within the justice system.

.1335

Mr. Gallaway: Let me cut through it, then. You've mentioned that 12 is an arbitrary age and you would lower it to 10. How is that not arbitrary?

Mr. Newman: How is 10 not arbitrary?

Mr. Gallaway: Yes.

Mr. Newman: I think most children under the age of 10 will listen to their parents and look for guidance, but after that age you do see a change.

Mr. Gallaway: What evidence do you have of that? Is that your belief, or is that based on something? Is that your personal belief, are your constituents telling you that, or what is it based on?

Mr. Newman: That's what my constituents are telling me. They are the ones I'm representing here today.

Mr. Gallaway: So that's your constituents' belief?

Mr. Newman: I'd like to say that a few months ago I held a town hall meeting on youth crime. We had over 500 people there. These were 500 concerned citizens of Scarborough Centre voicing their dissatisfaction with the Young Offenders Act and youth crime.

Mr. Gallaway: I'll have a final question, then. You're making recommendations that we have to send a message to young people. That's your opening assumption. You're also saying we have to get a little more severe with these people; we have to lower the age so we can get them into the system earlier. Yet you're also saying the system isn't working. Now, I'm trying to deal with your realities here. If the system isn't working but we're going to bring them into the system earlier, what are we going to accomplish? Are we going to create more...? We know 50% are repeaters, according to your statistics. What are we going to accomplish?

Mr. Newman: We talk about the system not working. The system isn't working as it is. Until some real changes are made in this country, we will have something positive on youth crime.

Mr. Gallaway: You've made a specific recommendation about drug and alcohol programs for those people who are young offenders and who appear with addiction problems. Are you aware the Attorney General of the Province of Ontario can in fact instruct his crown attorneys to order those as part of a sentence? Will you urge the Attorney General to do that?

Mr. Newman: Sir, can I just -

Mr. Gallaway: Will you urge the Attorney General to do that?

Mr. Newman: I will pass my comment on to him.

Mr. Gallaway: Would you then also advocate early identification programs within the schools, so we can identify at-risk people, or would you -

Mr. Newman: Are at-risk children not being identified today?

Mr. Gallaway: Not according to the experts.

Mr. Newman: I can tell you that I as a member of two committees of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, one of them being on social development, travelling across the province on some education bills, found people were saying of junior kindergarten that it provides an opportunity to identify at-risk children. They are the professionals. They're saying at-risk children are being identified at age 4. So I would say it's happening within the school system.

Mr. Gallaway: Another question. You want to put all young people, regardless of age, into the adult system if it's a violent crime. In your world, what do you do with an 8-year-old who has been convicted of a violent crime? Do I put them into a penitentiary?

Mr. Newman: I'm glad you used the example of the 8-year-old, because it's ridiculous putting them in with adults. You can still have an adult sentence but not put them in adult facilities.

Mr. Gallaway: What do you do with a 16-year-old? Do you put them in with 35-year-olds? That's the average age of -

Mr. Newman: What's the crime you're talking about?

Mr. Gallaway: It doesn't matter. It's one that's -

Mr. Newman: Yes, I would put them in.

Mr. Gallaway: Do you not think you would then be producing younger, more hardened criminals?

Mr. Newman: If someone's already murdered, what more heinous crime could they commit?

Mr. Gallaway: We visited a facility here in the Toronto area yesterday where we met 16-year-old children who had committed murder at age 14. Do we write them off from society forever?

Mr. Newman: I would make them pay the price of the sentence everyone else gets.

Mr. Gallaway: So you would make them adults?

Mr. Newman: I would give them adult sentences.

.1340

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Gallaway. Ms Torsney is next.

Ms Torsney (Burlington): I guess I have to say that in the course of some of your questions I detected that we disagree about things. It seems to me that you're willing to wait until someone has been charged, and whether that's at 10 or at an earlier age you want things to kick in after a crime has been committed because then this person has been charged.

I would like to see fewer people be victims of crime. I would like to see that programs like Earlscourt are in fact used by school boards and police departments to give parents the tools to deal with their children and children the tools so that they don't commit a crime. So we're coming at this slightly differently.

One of the things you're talking about is your constituents' perceptions about some of these things that are happening. You said you had 500 people come out to a forum on youth crime and they wanted children dealt with severely. I would argue that those people wanted the crime never to have occurred. So how do we get the resources there?

Mr. Newman: I wish you had been at that meeting to see Tracy Christie and Tom Ambas talk about family members who have been murdered.

Ms Torsney: We're going to hear from them afterwards.

Mr. Newman: I'm glad that you will be hearing from them today.

Ms Torsney: My question to you is very specific. It's not about what to do with the child who may have murdered somebody but how to make sure that the Ambas and the Christie families of the world never have to deal with that loss, because another person's child won't commit that crime. What should we do to prevent?

Mr. Newman: Implement the recommendations I have made for the Young Offenders Act.

Ms Torsney: That's it? We shouldn't work with families? We should give them any tools? We shouldn't fund programs like Earlscourt?

Mr. Newman: What tools particularly are you talking about giving families? I think the tools families need are things like parental responsibility. As I mentioned, there is a tool such as the legal aid system where someone is automatically granted legal aid regardless of the parents' level of income. That gives the parent a tool to use with the child. I'll tell you that if I had to foot a$2,500 legal bill for my daughter it would be the last time I'd foot a legal bill.

Ms Torsney: What would you do with your child?

Mr. Newman: When it comes out of your own pocket I think it's a little different. I don't know if you're a parent or not, but believe me, if parents had to foot the bill themselves I think they would take crime a little more seriously.

Ms Torsney: Again, Mr. Newman -

Mr. Newman: So make the parents financially -

Ms Torsney: Mr. Newman, my observation stands again.

Mr. Newman: If parents are financially able to -

The Chair: Let's get some order in there. Ms Torsney, could you finish your question?

Ms Torsney: Mr. Newman, again you are talking about making a tool that kicks in after a crime has been committed, after somebody has been victimized, after a child is facing a criminal record. My question is what tools can we give parents? Are you willing to fund tools that will help parents deal with their children? Maybe they don't have the management tools. It's not a question of financial resources and making them pay for legal aid. A crime has occurred. Someone has been victimized. How are we going to help with those parents?

You're absolutely right that in junior kindergarten kids are presenting themselves as needing help. But the problem is that parents have to wait five or ten years, until their kid has committed a crime, to get the services. They're running around town and no one will help them.

Mr. Newman: I disagree with you on that.

Ms Torsney: Why?

Mr. Newman: I don't know how you fund morals and rules within the household. I'm glad to hear you mention the victim, because we're always talking about the criminal, the young offender. I'm glad to hear you at least once talk about the victim.

The Chair: Thank you. We'll take a break for two minutes and go on to our next witness.

.1344

.1352

The Chair: Order.

Mr. Ambas, welcome.

Mr. Tom Ambas (Kid Brother Campaign): Thank you, Madam Chairman.

You'll excuse my reading. I only went to Danforth Tech and I'm not very good, but I'll do my best.

The Chair: We're all here to represent our constituents, and we don't even notice things like that. So don't worry about it.

Mr. Ambas: Thank you.

I'm just an ordinary Canadian with a family and a small business. To tell you the truth, I'd rather be almost anywhere else today, but unfortunately on May 10, 1995 some people came into my Scarborough store and murdered by 35-year-old brother, Louis Ambas.

Murder isn't really a strong enough word for it. What they did was stab and slash Louis more than 54 times, mostly as he kneeled on the floor helpless.

These killers took about $700. They left behind Louis' wife Carol, his 3-year-old daughter Megan, his 12-year-old son Guy, and our parents - a family who loved him very much.

About a month later, police charged a 17-year-old with murder. When Louis was killed, he was still on probation from an earlier armed robbery. Under the Young Offenders Act, we couldn't even find out his name. This was very hard for my mother to take. She was in very bad shape and just wanted to know who had done this to her son. Under the YOA, that was impossible.

We finally found out his name when some court employee took pity on us and passed us a piece of paper. She begged us not to tell, out of fear that she'd end up in jail herself.

That was the first of many court appearances, and last December, after many days in court and mountains of evidence, the accused was finally raised to adult court. It was no sure thing, but it finally happened. We were quite pleased at first, but soon learned it really didn't mean very much at all.

.1355

Even if this guy is convicted of first-degree murder and gets a so-called life sentence, we found out he likely will be out on parole in as little as five years. Louis's daughter will be eight years old and his wife will be shuffling off to parole hearings trying to keep him locked up, fearing the day he's released. Obviously no one has been convicted in this case, and it's always possible the police have the wrong man. We'll soon find out. But one thing's for sure - my brother is not coming back.

Thanks to all these hearings, much of the story came out. We found out the accused has a long young offender's record for armed robbery and assault. All he learned from the YOA was that he could get away with anything until he turned 18. We also learned that he was an illegal immigrant and that his age made deportation so difficult no one even tried.

This young person - it sounds so innocent - had earlier told court psychologists that he liked killing. In spite of all this, no one in our justice system thought twice about letting this psycho back on the streets. Thanks to the secrecy of the YOA, there was no possible way for us to know about our new next-door neighbour.

This 17-year-old person caused unimaginable, extreme pain. My brother George Ambas and I vowed that we would do anything we could to fix Canada's Young Offenders Act. We simply couldn't stand by and let this happen to another family.

I don't think you really understand what a terrible crime murder is. Our family has been devastated and will feel the effects for generations. This wasn't a school yard scuffle. It wasn't a prank. It wasn't a mistake. It's not something anyone or any punishment can ever make right. Most important, it should never have been allowed to happen in the first place. If your justice system had handled this person properly when he started committing violent crimes, my brother Louis would be alive today. That's the simple truth, and it's why I'm here today.

That's the problem with the YOA; it makes people believe they are untouchable. I want justice for Louis. Maybe I even want revenge. But most of all, I just wish this had never happened. We were let down by our country's justice system. It's as simple as that.

When I came to Canada from Greece in 1960, I was 10 years old. We settled in the east end of Toronto. Let me tell you, it was a rough, tough neighbourhood, and there were plenty of fights, but never, never at all, did I feel the kind of violence we read about every day.

I understand the need for rehabilitation. Most people get out of jail eventually. But it's obvious to most Canadians that punishment is one good way to motivate people and make them want to change. I'm not saying we should start caning people, but I'll bet there aren't many teenagers spray-painting cars in Singapore these days.

You don't seem to live in the real world. Some people make mistakes - I certainly have, and maybe even you have - and most people deserve a second chance. But some people, even some teenagers, are mean, nasty, violent criminals who won't change just because you're nice to them.

I also understand the need to help kids out early and when they have mental and emotional problems. That's great, but it doesn't really help us deal with the big, strong 16-year-olds who kill, rob and rape. They aren't children any more. It's too late for these people, and you might as well face that fact.

You can say what you want and play with numbers all you want, but ordinary Canadians realize something has gone very wrong. That's why 500,000 of them signed our petition demanding changes to the YOA. These people come from all walks of life from across Canada. Many of these people work with young offenders every day.

One police officer told me there would be a revolt in this country if people really knew what went on with the Young Offenders Act. You may think we're just ignorant fools, but in the end, you'd better listen to what ordinary people in this country are saying to you.

.1400

In addition to our petition, we wrote over 1,100 letters to members of Parliament, spoke at town hall meetings and were on many radio and television shows. We talked to thousands of Canadians, and until I saw this committee at work on Monday, I couldn't understand who was against us and why nothing was done. Now I know.

Justice Minister Allan Rock finally met with my brother and me last November. We gave him a list of ten things we wanted him to do, and with one single exception, Mr. Rock told us to our faces that any reasonable person would support our demands. Please remember that as I read this.

First, we want people accused of murder to be tried in adult court, regardless of age.

Second, we want people accused of murder to have their identities revealed, regardless of age.

Third, we want people convicted of murder to receive adult sentences, including adult parole rules, regardless of age.

Four, we want Canada's justice system to protect innocent citizens from people who have shown a willingness to murder, maim, rape and rob. The age of criminals shouldn't matter when it comes to protecting innocent people.

Five, it seems many young people believe the YOA allows them to get away with anything. Right or wrong, the idea must be changed.

Six, if someone gets a second chance under the YOA, that should be it. There should be no third, fourth, fifth or sixth chance.

Seven, young offenders' ages should be dropped to a minimum of 10 and a maximum of 15; 16- and 17-year-olds should always be treated as adults. Mr. Rock agreed the age should be lowered to 15, but told us he wanted the 12-year-old limit to stay as is.

Eight, police, immigration and other agencies must have full access to all young offenders' records. These records should only ever be sealed for non-violent offences.

Nine, there should be very severe penalties for adults who take advantage of the YOA by recruiting young people to crime.

Ten, we must keep honest statistics on youth crime, especially when young offenders are diverted from the justice system to other programs.

These are our ten demands. Mr. Rock looked us straight in the eye and told me any reasonable person would agree with every one of these proposals, with the single exception I mentioned. He even said he'd consider scrapping the YOA.

He patted us on the head and told us how important we were and that we should tell our story to you. He even told us these changes would be in place within eight months. That's coming this July. Unfortunately, as soon as we left, Mr. Rock told reporters he had only agreed to study our proposals.

What I don't understand is this. If a dumb guy like me can see what needs to be done, if millions of Canadians support our proposals and if our justice minister agrees, what are we waiting for? I know some of you think there's nothing wrong with the YOA and this is just a political game, a big joke. I don't. Mr. Rock told us any reasonable person would agree with our demands. So please, enough talk.

Thank you.

The Chair: Does the person accompanying you wish to say anything?

Mr. Ambas: No.

The Chair: Mr. Langlois.

.1405

[Translation]

Mr. Langlois: Thank you for your presentation. My question will be somewhat general, Mr. Ambas, since you have given us specific recommendations which you've already submitted to Minister Rock. Prior to the tragic events that cost your brother his life and the pain that resulted for you and your family, how did you perceive the criminal justice system as it related to young offenders? Was it a concern for you at that time?

[English]

Mr. Ambas: Let me just tell you that I have a few stores in Toronto. Three of them are mine. I was quite aware of the Young Offenders Act before this, but I'm like everybody else...you have to pay your bills, so you work and you forget about a lot of things.

But, yes, I was concerned. I've been in business since 1969. I've dealt with criminals all my life. The type of people who buy my boots are either criminals or good guys. It's just the way it is. I sell cowboy boots.

I know one thing. In the last two years I've been robbed over 22 times. Most of the people who work for me are under the age of 25, so I do deal with a lot of young kids and I work with...and I do the CNE. I hire a lot of young kids.

Do you know what? I've had cases where kids come into my store, put on a pair of boots and put on a jacket, and then it's ``Well, I have a gun. I suggest you sit back or I'll kill you.'' And then they walk out of my store. These are all documented cases. You can call the police. We phoned the police. They said they couldn't come. I understand. They're busy. A lot of the time they don't show up. A lot of the time the report is taken. We've had the same case with two...the same people have come again after six months. They just come in and take what they want.

Of course we can make the report. I have to go to the police station. I have to take the day off. I have to pay for my employee to take the day off.

Look, I knew about the Young Offenders Act...and I've had cases where thousands... I'm not talking about one or two. I've had kids say, ``Well, you can't do anything to me.'' They come in, they steal a belt and they run away.

Two doors away from me, my little nephew was robbed by an 18-year-old and a 16-year-old. I went after them and I was charged with assault. As a matter of fact, I'm on parole right now. All I really tried to do was to protect my little nephew. He came into my store in convulsions. He wanted to hide under the table. He wanted to go home. He didn't want to tell his father, because these kids told him if he said anything to his father they would kill him the next day. Can you imagine what that does? Now this happened to his dad...

My sons have been robbed twice. I live in the neighbourhood. I live five blocks away from my store. My sons have been robbed with knives and once with a gun. Maybe the criminals know who the kids are and they go after them. I don't know. They were robbed. It has been reported. So I know...as I said, I've had cases where people came into my store and said, ``Listen, I'm a young offender, you can't touch me.'' This is the message we have to give them: ``We can touch you!''

I understand everything you're saying with children and welfare. I'm not an expert, but I know. I know how I grew up. I was so scared my dad would do something to me that I stayed out of trouble. A lot of my friends are dead now because of drugs, because of crime. I lived in the east end of Toronto. That was the way of life. It was a tough place to grow up in. But I had fear. Thank God that I had fear of my father. If I stepped out of line he would straighten me out, but my dad never once hit me. I respect him now. He's 70 years old right now and my mom is 69. All they look forward to is going to the graveyard every single day...and come to my store because some criminal...

People in this room call them ``children''. How can you call a 16-year-old who weighs220 pounds who is willing to stab you...? They stopped counting at 54 times. What human being did this to my brother? What difference does it make if he was 16 or 60? Is it going to make me feel better that he was 16 and he didn't know?

.1410

All I'm saying is that it's not a political issue. I've voted Liberal all my life. When I voted, I thought Liberal. I thought, it's a great country, I'm going to gain everything I can. But to see my parents like this every day, just to see them crying, and then to have politicians call me and ask me if my brother was involved with drugs - what does that mean? That if he was involved in drugs... Listen, my brother was a beautiful, handsome man. He was the only guy who was educated. He was educated, he was a nice man, and I should have been there. It was my store. Some criminals who live two doors away from me killed him. You couldn't recognize my little brother.

I don't want to put young children that we talk about...I have two kids of my own. I don't want to see a 12-year-old go to jail with 35-year-olds or even see a 16-year-old go to jail with 35-year-olds. I'll answer those questions. We can protect Paul Bernardo. If we have 16-year-olds in jail, we will protect them. We will tell them that they're going to jail with 16 year-olds. It's simple. Why do we do this for Bernardo when we can't do it for a young offender?

As far as I'm concerned, I'm really not interested in this thing about politics. I don't want to be a politician. I know you're all intelligent people, but I tell you, if this ever happened to any one of your sons... I know when I talked to Allan Rock that he was crying, that he knew my pain.

It's not about politics. I'm willing to talk with anybody. All I want to do is this: if it ever happens to my 12 year-old...if he goes to school and gets killed, I will die. I could not go through this ever again. This is why I'm doing it.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Ambas.

I don't know if there are any other questions.

Mr. Ambas: No, that's it. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.

The Chair: Thank you very much for coming to see us.

We'll rise for about five minutes.

.1412

.1433

The Chair: We are back, and we welcome ``Mary Jane Doe''. Why am I having so much trouble believing that?

We want to welcome you. We have about 45 minutes. Go ahead.

Ms Mary Jane Doe (Individual Presentation): Thank you for having me here to speak.

I am the mother of a young man who is currently serving federal time in a penitentiary. He was a young offender, beginning formally at the age of 14. His career started at about the age of 6, but formally he went into the system at the age of 14. He's still in the penitentiary system, so to speak, but he's beyond young offender age at this time. He will be released at some time over the next few months.

However, you have my story in brief in black and white, and some recommendations I came up with simply because of my experience of having walked with my son through this whole period. He had some good experiences with individuals in the system, and there were a lot of things that disturbed me quite a bit and actually disturbed him as well.

I should give you a little background. My son is generally a very loving person. He has a good heart, a wonderful sense of humour. He has extremely good social skills. He is intellectually smart, but he's not a book learner. He's not a good student. He does not sit well for long periods. He likes to be active, using his hands and his mind.

For a number of personal reasons that had a lot to do with the lack of a relationship with his father...and I hope I don't get any of those comments like ``oh yes, here's another bitter mother coming to tear down the father'', because I've had that look for many years. The reality of it is that I wish he really did have a strong relationship with his father, but he never really did, and that was not because of my son's lack of trying.

Daddy was always full of promises. I'll be there. Sure, I'll pick you up. Yes, we'll go do this, we'll go do that; we'll have a wonderful time. But for the most part he simply did not call, did not show up. Every time this happened - and it happened almost on a weekly basis, on average - my son's jaw got a little tighter, he set his chin a little higher, and another few bricks went up on the wall around his heart. It was very hard to take.

.1435

So what he did for the most part at these very emotional and trying times was blame me for all of his ills. In some ways I think he still does, because he doesn't want to address the whole emotional trauma. That's fine at this point in time.

The bottom line is that I asked a number of all the specialists we saw over the years why this child is so vehemently blaming me for his pain, his ills. Of course we don't want to recognize it in this way; we don't want to call it pain or anything like that. The answer I got from all the psychologists and the child workers, the experts, was, ``You, as a mother, are the only person who's stable in his life. You are the only person who has stood by him. You're the only person he can vent with and you won't run off. You've proven that. He's knows he can count on that. He has to vent somehow. He has to get some of this pain out. He doesn't know how to address it in the way we might as adults, sitting in a therapeutic session, or whatever. He's a child. He's acting out.''

It makes sense to me. I've done a fair bit of reading on this kind of thing, and I would agree with it.

Anyway, when daddy was around, his lifestyle was such that he really was not a good role model. He set a lot of bad examples for my son. For whatever reason, he decided to go in that way: emulate dad, follow in daddy's footsteps, perhaps thinking maybe daddy will learn to like me if I become more like him. It never worked. The more in trouble he got, the more distant his father became from him, until about four years ago when he actually called and asked me what the hell was the matter with our son.

I am not a quiet, retiring type of person. There was a story in Reader's Digest a few years back called ``Where Have All the Fathers Gone?'' I don't remember the author; I'm sorry. It was a two-page article in Reader's Digest. I cut it out and I mailed it to him. I have never heard from him to this day, but from previous conversations his father has had, I know that it probably hit home, because he experienced much the same thing with his father and so on.

My main reason for coming here today is that you're looking at making changes to the young offenders system. I believe strongly that some major changes have to be made. This belief comes from comments I've had from my son and a couple of friends he's made from being in the system that the whole thing, in their words, is just a big joke.

From the police chasing them whenever they do whatever it is they feel like doing to going through the court system, it's ``Well, we'll get off. It's a first offence. No big deal. What are they going to do - slap our wrists?'' It became extremely pathetic.

My experience was that the parents going to court with a young offender go through more misery than the child does. It's my understanding that when you go to adult court you actually have a time to appear. As a young offender, there is no time. You go first thing in the morning. You sit all day long until your name comes up. Wherever it is, nobody knows, and nobody says. If you're a parent, you go and you end up spending the whole day there.

I did that two or three times. I had a number of very serious talks with my son. He was doing this stuff that he was doing, mostly stealing cars and robbing variety stores and these sorts of things, because he felt like it. That was his only answer: he felt like it.

After I appeared a few times and took days off work, I said to him that if he was going to continue doing this I was not going to continue to be there for him, to support him in court, which made him angry.

So the whole thing just keeps rolling over and over on top of itself and getting more and more complicated. At this point he's just an angry young man with a lot of stuff inside that he doesn't know how to deal with.

In all the young offender facilities he has been in - and he has been in at least six of them, and ran away from several of them - counselling was available only if he was going to be there for a long time. There was no immediate counselling. There's no taking under one's wing. I appreciate that might mean a 1:1 ratio in these facilities, which would probably be very difficult and very costly to the taxpayers.

.1440

If the whole system is revamped, it's going to be a very painful process to get changes in, because everybody has their own opinion and their own point of view. It's probably going to be very costly as well. But changes really do have to happen. Young people really have to become accountable for their actions, and they're not. It's everybody else's fault. Even as adults, if something goes wrong, the first thing we instinctively do is try to blame it on somebody else. In the young offenders system, they're actually getting away with it. They're blaming other people and getting away with it.

I remember at the first closed custody facility he went in, there was a meeting with the staff, the director of the facility, the Children's Aid worker and me. About fifteen minutes into the meeting, they asked me why I felt my son was in there. I told them the story, and they were looking out the window, picking their nails, looking through some papers and just being quite rude. I'd seen these looks before, so at the end of it I finally said, ``Well, you know what? I'm going to leave now, and you folks are going to have to live with him for the next three months, so have fun.''

His prime worker called me after about six weeks and apologized. He said, ``I'm sorry we treated you the way we did, and yes, you did make some valid points. Could we sit down and talk about this situation again, so that maybe it will help me in my dealings with your son to help him get out of this lifestyle, if at all possible?'' So I said sure.

There are caring people in the system, like everywhere else, and there are some people who are there because it's a job. Maybe they cared at one time, but they've become cynical because of the day-to-day grind of the whole thing. Some of these young offenders are not nice people. In some of the facilities you get to see some of the other kids, and boy, I'll tell you, it's pretty scary. Some of these kids are not supported by their families.

One facility my son was in took me almost an hour to drive to every week. I got to know the staff quite well. They knew what I took in my tea and they'd always have a hot cup ready for me. When the doors clanged shut behind me, my hair would stand on end, because I can't imagine not having my freedom. We would go in and visit. It was supposed to be an hour, but they'd let me stay for longer, because I was the only parent there. For weeks on end, I was the only parent who ever visited. Some of these kids were in pretty sad shape and nobody cared. Some of the parents lived closer than I did, and they didn't call, they didn't write, they didn't visit.

So these kids are out in the community when they're on the loose, they're causing a lot of pain to innocent citizens, they're robbing, they're stealing, they're assaulting, they're going on joy rides, they're damaging property, people in some cases and homes. My home was broken into one time. That's a pretty terrible thing to go through. It's a very traumatic experience, and society is getting kind of fed up about it.

My point is that for the most part, the kids who continue to do this sort of thing are the ones who are experiencing some real problems - family problems, emotional problems and all the rest of it. They need some serious, big-time help. When they're incarcerated, what they're really doing is teaching each other what they did, so they learn new, better, faster or kinkier ways to do things. They learn more tricks, literally.

My son and I, oddly enough, have always had a fairly open and loving relationship and have been fairly close. That was commented on many times by teachers and some of the specialists we went to see. He would get out of a facility for a short period of time, and he would come home and tell me some of the things that went on - some of the things that he did and some of the things that some of the other young offenders had done.

.1445

Part of my white hair is because of my genes, but I'm sure the other part is from my son and some of the stories he's told me, because I absolutely could not believe some of the things these kids do. They should be in school. They should be coming home to loving families. But for the most part that option is not there, for whatever reason.

I have a daughter who is eight years older than my son. She's married. I have two grandchildren. I have a very short tape here that I want to play for you. My son has a very definite place in the family. We all care very much for him.

He's seemingly bent on this route of self-destruction, and, quite frankly, we don't know what to do about it. He's gone through this system and it's just been, as he says, a joke. There's been one institution after another. He goes in. He gets out. He goes in. He gets out. Nothing really solid has ever taken place that has shown him that anybody else really cares or that the system really cares.

The message is, you're here because you got caught. That's another thing. It is not because you did something wrong and you hurt people, but because you got caught and you got sentenced. Now you're going to serve time. In their minds - and this has been said over and over again - is ``I got caught. That's why I'm here. If I hadn't got caught, I wouldn't be here. So it's the cops' problem, or whatever. It's not my problem.''

They have to learn that it is their problem. They must be told, ``This was your behaviour. You hurt these people. You damaged this property, which in turn hurts people'' - and all these sorts of things. They have to become accountable.

Through this process, however it's going to happen - I don't know - I would like at some point to take part in this process, to do something. Young people really have to become accountable for what they do and accountable to other human beings, not just to institutions.

This is a tape of my two grandchildren, who idolize their uncle although they don't see very much of him. This was taped at Christmas, because I was given this just at Christmas. At that time my granddaughter was six and my grandson was four and a half. It's very short, but it really upset me when I heard it. I don't know how you'll respond, but I'll just play it for you. I hope you can hear it.

[Audio Presentation]

Ms Doe: That's my four-and-a-half-year-old grandson, who idolizes his uncle: ``I hope he gets out of jail soon''. Every time I see them, which is fairly regularly, he says to me, ``Is Uncle Chris still in jail? When is Uncle Chris going to get out? What did he do? Why is he in jail? Why is he so bad? I love Uncle Chris. When is he going to come home?''

This kid has a family who cares about him. A lot of kids don't.

I truly believe that the bottom line is that kids who are in trouble with the law, who are in youth facilities, are very troubled. They have a lot of pain and they need a lot of help.

I'm a fairly realistic person. I like to think I am fairly well balanced, and I say on the other hand that they also need to be accountable. I can't say that enough.

That's really all I have to say here this afternoon. You've got the rest in black and white, in print.

The Chair: Thank you. We do have it in black and white. We received it in advance of today.

Mr. Langlois, do you have some questions?

[Translation]

Mr. Langlois: I was trying somewhat unsuccessfully to listen to you and to go over your brief at the same time so that I could ask you some questions. I have some trouble following the solutions you are proposing in your brief.

.1450

You mention boot camps in recommendation 13 on page 4; I would like you to clarify your thoughts on that.

You seem to want all people, regardless of their age, to be covered by the Act. You are opposed to parents being held civilly responsible for the offenses committed by their children. I would like you to provide us with some clarification on the various concrete proposals you have to amend the Young Offenders Act.

[English]

Ms Doe: Certainly.

First of all, one other comment I wanted to make is that young offenders are a body of citizens, so to speak, but they're also individuals, and we can't lose sight of the fact that they are individuals.

My own experience was that my son's father just literally took off. He couldn't keep a job and was not one of society's higher-minded citizens. He paid child support for about six months when my son was about 8 years old. The rest of the time I had to raise him myself. It was a bit of a struggle on occasion.

This is quite a few years back. When I tried to find out how I would go about chasing him down for support money, I was told that because he didn't have a real job I would have to hire a detective and a lawyer and basically have him followed and all the rest of it to get funds.

In the meantime I did my best to supply child care, to make sure my son was supervised during holidays and summer vacation. He went to camp, he went to visit with friends at a cottage, all sorts of things. He was never left unattended. This all cost money, which I had to earn myself, to feed him, clothe him, keep a roof over his head, keep a vehicle so we could go visit family, friends, and all that sort of thing.

If all this happened now, in this day and age, or maybe a year or two from now, and somebody was going to sue me or slap me with a bill to pay for whatever his crimes were - I know somebody has to pay for it - I'd be pretty upset about that. My question would be this. His father is sitting in Florida, having a hell of a good time living by the beach; why isn't somebody helping me chase him for funds? How come he can come up here and use our health care system and do all kinds of other close-to-the-fence illegal things and he is getting away with it? But I should stay here and keep my nose to the grindstone and pay for this? Emotionally, that's a problem for me. I realize I'm just one case.

I also know that whenever the police brought my son home - it was usually late at night - I always asked them in and we spoke and had our dealings and all the rest of it. I also know those same police officers are finding other young people and taking them home and the parents are calling the police every name in the book and telling them to get off their property and all the rest of it, because they don't think their little boy or girl is capable of doing any of these naughty little things.

Where do you draw the line? I don't know. But that's my reality. I would be upset about being sued or slapped with a bill to pay for my son.

I think he should have to pay for it in some way or another. The young offenders are quite capable of...doing what, I'm not sure. But as I say, I'd be happy to sit on some committee at some future date to help sort some of this stuff out.

On the other point, about the minimum age, there is just a lot of talk and a lot of publicity, press and what have you, these days about young offenders getting literally younger and younger. It seems every time the age drops it's beating the system. That's what these kids talk about: ``Well, I'm only 11; you can't touch me.'' There's been stuff in the news very recently on that: ``I'm only 11; you can't touch me.'' Yet they are doing some pretty horrific crimes. So if we lower the age to 11, then we'll have 10-year-olds doing this kind of stuff. If we lower it to 10, then we'll have 9-year-olds trying to do this sort of thing.

.1455

It's the mentality of the young offender that is the problem here, or one of the problems. They adopt this terrible mentality where rather than applying themselves to their education and the good things in life, they're putting all their efforts into shocking people, going out and getting a rush from stealing and burglarizing and so on. Then they compare notes. It's like earning their way into a club of some kind.

In fact, I understand in London at one time that was exactly it. In order to get into a certain gang you had to go and steal a car or a certain number of cars. Now some of these kids are younger and younger.

My next-door neighbours had their car stolen within the last month by, I believe, a young offender who could not be touched because he fell beneath the legal age limit for the young offender system. It's pretty scary to think you have an 11-year-old behind the wheel of a car, racing through city streets. It scares the heck out of me, I'll tell you.

Boot camps for young offenders is another subject being tossed around by a lot of our citizens and press and what have you. My opinion, for whatever it's worth, is that I believe these kids are problem kids, and they have a lot of emotional issues. They need help, they don't need just strict regimentation. They need to know that somebody really cares about them as an individual, as a human being. Somebody values them. Somebody's willing to help direct them and get them turned around, if that's what it takes. At the same time, they also need to know that along with privileges go responsibilities. To learn responsibilities they have to be taught some form of discipline. But I'm not an expert in this field.

An adult woman I know just went through the Outward Bound program. They go off into the woods in canoes and backpacks and so on. They really have to learn to rely on themselves out in the middle of nowhere. There aren't cars to steal. There aren't houses to break into. There aren't police officers constantly watching over their shoulders. They're out in the woods with minimal supplies. Then they get involved in canoeing or climbing hills and doing all kinds of things. They have to learn to rely on each other. They have to learn to trust. It's a very intense program.

Maybe this is the kind of thing these young offenders need to learn. They don't trust anybody. They don't even trust each other, because they're all criminals. They don't have a level of trust.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Langlois. Ms Torsney.

Ms Torsney: One of the things we heard from some parents in a program that's helping them deal with their children - they may have one or two kids they have no problem with; obviously, your daughter didn't have any problems, and you were able to deal with her - is that they spent a lot of time looking for help for their child at a very early age.

I note that your son was stealing at about age 6. Should people have approached you, and did they? Should there have been another way to get you the skills you needed, and your son the skills he needed, to deal with his either being pressured into stealing or wanting to steal or understanding right and wrong? Were there services, and should there be?

Ms Doe: Yes, there should be services. We took part in some services through the school system, because that's where the original problems came up. The first time he stole anything was when he stole a watch from a little classmate whose mother happened to be his after-school babysitter. He stole her watch twice - not just once, but twice. He thought it was pretty funny.

I would get calls from the school that he was a problem and I should deal with it. I would say I could use some help, and I'd ask what they could recommend. It was, ``Read this book.'' Okay. So I read a lot of books.

.1500

As he got into grades three and four, they finally made appointments with the school psychologist. I've been told by school psychologists, and by one within the community as well, after he'd been tested for chemical imbalance and all kinds of stuff... My son came out of this thinking that there was something wrong with him, and it just added another chip to his shoulder. He thought there was something wrong with him. He was a problem. He was deficient in some way. You can try to reassure them, but it's a very difficult thing to do, because they already feel this way.

So I read all the books. I had one psychologist tell me that I ought to change my attitude and get over being angry at the marriage break-up. I said to him that I was not angry about the marriage breakup; quite frankly, I was very relieved for myself, and what I wanted was for my son's father to take an interest in him to be a father to him. He said not to worry and that when it all settled out, everything would be fine. I was told that: it will be fine, he'll grow out of this, don't worry about it. I've been patronized up to here.

Then he went to high school for the first time, having had a problem from grade one through school. When he first went to high school, I called the vice-principal and I asked if I could come to speak to him. He said sure. So I went in and said that the only reason I was there was because my son was starting high school soon.

I'm not sure about this: I really couldn't get a straight answer as to whether or not his files were going to the high school from elementary school or whether he was going to get a clean start. Nobody would tell me that. I told him that I just wanted to be sure, that there had been problems in our family life, and these were the problems. I said he had a bit of a chip on his shoulder but he was a good kid, and I asked if they could work with me. He called me by my name, patted me on the shoulder, and asked whether I was just overreacting a little bit. He said not to worry and that he would be fine.

I said that was fine, so I left. That was September 1. In the middle of September, I got a phone call from this very same vice-principal, who said my son had been suspended from school for a few days. I was told to keep him at home.

I was at my wit's end at this point. I didn't know what to do. I'm on my own with this kid. I sought out the superintendent of the apartment building we lived in and asked if he needed some help for a couple of days. He said sure. He asked what I had in mind. I said I had a son who was 14 - maybe he was 15 at the time - who was going to be off from school for a couple of days. So I asked whether he could give him some good, hard work to do. He said sure. So he had him sweeping and scrubbing the stairways in a 16-storey building. He didn't like it, but he did it.

He was supervised; he wasn't just sitting in his room having an easy time. Whether that was right or wrong, I don't know. But I was bound and determined that I wasn't going to let him go off and wander the neighbourhood or sit in front of the TV.

I talked to this vice-principal two or three times. I got another phone call about a week before Christmas that year to say that my son has been expelled from school. They didn't want to see him back there. He hung up the phone. He didn't even wait for me to reply. He hung up the phone.

Ms Torsney: If we had a perfect world - God, I wish we did - would we be teaching all young people about how to deal...? There are people who think some people are good and others who think some people are not so good. Clearly your vice-principal thought initially, on the surface, that your kid was going to be fine. Should we be teaching young grade-school children responsibility, anger management, conflict resolution, parenting as they get a little older, and where to get resources in their community? Would that have helped your family?

Ms Doe: Yes, I believe so. To go back to the vice-principal, perhaps he needs an upgrade in people skills as well. I wonder what kind of a message that gave to my son when he treated me that way. I spoke to him the same way I'm speaking to you. I don't go around yelling and screaming or getting hysterical or anything else like that. That's the way he treated me.

I realize he's one individual, and so what? But he is in a position of responsibility over young people. He ought not to be treating other adults that way, because he's giving a very definite message, and it wasn't a particularly good one.

.1505

So yes, I really strongly believe that reading and writing and arithmetic, the old ``three Rs'', are good standbys, but particularly in this day and age we need strong people skills. People need to know all those things you said - conflict resolution, anger management, all of that.

Ms Torsney: And work more intensively with those real troubles rather than waiting until they're expensive and hurt people in our community. It's the most important thing that's missing.

Ms Doe: One of the observations I made was that my son had a couple of teachers he idolized. He just thought that the sun rose and set on them. The only reason they were different from any of the other teachers... Academically they were equal, but what set them apart was that he was a troublemaker and they didn't shun him because of that. They recognized that and they would give him a little bit of extra attention, even if it was just a little touch on the shoulder and saying, ``Chris, how are you doing? What's happening with you?'' He just loved these teachers, and that's the only different thing they did. How much time does that take out of a teacher's day or week? If they do that once or twice a week to every kid, if they have 30 kids and they do that for one minute a week for each kid, that's half an hour. It can make a difference in how that kid gets through that school year.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms Torsney.

Mr. Gallaway.

Mr. Gallaway: Thanks, Madam Chair. I just have a very short question.

Mrs. Doe, thank you for coming this afternoon. In the course of an hour and a half this afternoon we've heard that we shouldn't use statistics because they're ``twisted'', and then we've been told that we should use ``honest'' statistics. So it's very interesting to have you come and tell a very straightforward story, and I thank you for that.

One of the earlier recommendations made by Mr. Newman was that - and I don't know if you were here for that -

Ms Doe: No.

Mr. Gallaway: He made a number of recommendations, which he said his constituents are telling him must be done, to fix the act. They have to do with parents and their connection to the system, with parents being required to pay.

First, the parent should be required to pay - even if they couldn't afford it - for legal aid. Second, on Monday Mr. Harnick and Mr. Runciman said to us that the parents, in their opinion, should be forced to pay. Of course, it's probably within the jurisdiction of the province to enact that provision with respect to compensation and civil liability.

I'm very interested in your observation that if you were required to pay, it would have been a punishment to you and others in your household. You've been in the system, there's no question about that. Have you encountered others along the way then who are in the same boat as you?

Ms Doe: I haven't had a lot of dealings with other parents of young offenders. Two or three - that's about all.

In my own case, had I had to pay for... I mean, I can't tell you how many times my son has appeared in court. If I'd had to pay the lawyers every time he appeared, if I'd had to pay for damages for every vehicle that he stole and every store that he robbed, and for the one little old lady whose purse he tried to take - all those kinds of things - I would now be on welfare.

Mr. Gallaway: Okay, I have one other question. This may be a bit too vague, but it seems at times we are hearing two ends of the story, so I welcome you, because you've put us back towards the middle, I think.

We're hearing stories that the system isn't working, and then we're hearing stories that the system is working. I wonder if you could tell us, in your opinion, what is the worst of the system and what is the best of the system?

Ms Doe: Well, I hear the food's really lousy. I guess that's because some get good food at home. Some of the other kids thought it was pretty okay; it's relative.

I have to question a system where we're trying to... What is the purpose of the young offenders system? My final statement is that they need to be punished, not pampered. I don't mean that they need to be strung up and whipped - that's not right, that shouldn't happen. At the same time, in some of these facilities they're sitting around all day watching Arnold Schwarzenegger bomb-everything, blow-up-everybody-in-the-world movies. They're playing pool and they're playing cards. What's wrong with this picture? Why are they not doing something a little more constructive?

.1510

Mr. Gallaway: In that scenario, do you think they're sitting around because there's a lack of resources or they're sitting around because no one knows what to do with them?

Ms Doe: I think part of it is that the ratio of staff to young offenders is pretty low. If they can keep them in a group it takes fewer people to keep an eye on all of them.

They're not getting really good individual attention. This is my experience; and as I say, he's been in about six different facilities. They're not getting a lot of really good one-on-one attention.

Maybe I'm a bit of a dreamer, but out in the backyard here, let's plant a tree, one person with one young offender; let's show him and teach him how to plant this tree; teach the value of planting a tree. This is just an example. Tell him how this tree is going to grow up and how it will suck pollutants out of the air, and isn't this amazing. Some of these kids have never had that experience. They don't have anybody to say, ``Hi; you're important to me and let's do something special together''. That's not happening; but I maintain that is the kind of thing they need.

The Chair: Thank you very much for your assistance today. I know it was difficult, and we appreciate your coming to see us.

We'll rise for a couple of minutes so our next witness can take her place.

.1512

.1519

The Chair: I welcome now Ms Tracy Christie.

Tracy, I think I noticed you here quite early today, so you've seen the routine. We have your brief. It's not long, so I think probably everybody has read it. What I really want is for you to be comfortable. I know that's not possible, but I would like you to be as comfortable as possible in talking to us. So if you think you'd rather just answer some questions or if you have something you want to say other than this, you just go ahead. Do whatever you want to do. Okay?

Ms Tracy Christie (Individual Presentation): I'd like to read this, and I'm available to answer questions.

The Chair: Great. Thanks.

Ms Christie: I, like Tom and his sister-in-law, would rather not be here, but I have to be here for my daughter. So I would just like to read what I have to say, and thank you for inviting me.

.1520

On January 29, 1996, just over four months ago, my life was tragically altered. I left my 16-year-old daughter, Christie Rose Christie, with her 8-month-old brother, Austin, and her best friend at 6:30 p.m. They were doing homework together. She had a future, a career planned out for herself.

Approximately ten minutes after I left my home, where I thought I was leaving my children safe behind locked doors in their home... Well, I was wrong. Ten minutes after leaving my home I received a phone call saying my daughter had been shot. I lived through three hours of prayers and hope at the hospital, hoping she would live, but she did not. That is when I, her brother and family members and anyone Christie had touched in any sort of way began serving a life sentence of their own.

Four young offenders, aged 12 to 17, were involved. The press say it was a home invasion, but let the truth be known. It was a premeditated, cold-blooded murder. The young offenders forced their way into my home and shot my daughter with a sawed-off .12-gauge shotgun. The shooter stood three inches from my daughter and said boldly that he was going to kill her.

Please keep in mind that due to the Young Offenders Act this person's identity was and is protected. I ask you: where was my daughter's protection?

So now every day of my life I am serving a life sentence. The pain is unbearable each and every day as I have to walk over the spot in my kitchen where my daughter lay bleeding to death.

These young offenders are so protected by the Young Offenders Act that they knew exactly what they were doing and even knew what their punishment would be. I believe if there was no Young Offenders Act, my daughter would still be alive to this day.

Don't protect their identity. Quit the soft-glove treatment. If you do adult crimes, you should do adult time.

I believe the young offenders' privileges should be revoked, such as visitations, personal phone calls, conjugal visits, etc. I could go on. I don't get the privilege of seeing my daughter; therefore, why should their parents have the right to visit them?

My daughter's last words to me were the names of the murderer and the others involved, and also to take care of her brother, whom she loved dearly, and also that she loved me.

Please help change the Young Offenders Act by lowering the age, and when they're given a life sentence, let them serve a full life sentence. Even better, abolish the Young Offenders Act.

This Young Offenders Act is way out of control. Please stop this before it hits close to your hearts, because please believe me, it is not a matter you would like to deal with each and every day. My life has never and will never be the same without my wonderful daughter, Christie Rose Christie, who was only 16 years of age when tragically taken from me.

No one has the right to take a life, and there is no reason or answer for why they murdered my daughter.

The Chair: Thank you.

Can you take some questions?

Mr. Karygiannis.

Mr. Karygiannis (Scarborough - Agincourt): I want to thank you for coming here today.

As also a parent of adolescent daughters, I feel that sometimes when something tragic happens to our family, my first reaction is to want to take the law in my own hands and deal with this.

The Young Offenders Act certainly needs changing. I don't think there's anybody in Canada who says it doesn't need changing. However, one of the things that strikes me is you're saying we should take away family visits, phone calls and other things. Granted, there are some heinous crimes that, once they are committed, I agree...

First and foremost, I've been screaming for many years that the Young Offenders Act needs changing. For example, if somebody is 15 or 16 and they commit murder, I'm a supporter of moving them up to the adult court and letting the adult court deal with them, so they're tried as an adult and everything else.

But don't you think treatment should be available, if not mandatory, no matter what the crime is, to a 12- or 13-year-old? Kids in the system come from different households, whether they be solid or unsolid, and they may have good schooling or not. They may come from different provinces where junior kindergarten may be taken away, and there are other agendas that the political people will have, federally or provincially. But shouldn't treatment be mandatory?

.1525

Under our Charter of Rights and Freedoms some people can say they don't want treatment, but if you don't want treatment, then you don't get the things that would come from it - early parole, watching television in jail. There must be more of an atmosphere of a loving relationship. Parents must be heard from. Mrs. Mary Jane Doe from London felt she was the only mother who was going there.

Don't you think this offender, who took away the life of your daughter, put away... Even if we take him up to the adult court - he gets adult sentence of 25 years, 30 years, 15 years - when he gets out he has nothing to fall back on but to do the same thing to someone else that they did to your daughter. Shouldn't we provide, as a caring society, treatment for him even before he commits this? What I'm trying to drive at is maybe, in your wisdom, you would reconsider no phone calls.

Ms Christie: No, I wouldn't reconsider that at all. I can understand that they get phone calls to their lawyers, to important people they have to speak to due to their case. But my privileges were taken away as a parent.

I guess you could call it a matter of revenge. Why should they be able to talk to their parents? Why should their children be able to call them? I would love to have that privilege, to have my daughter call me, but it was taken away from me. Their privilege should be taken away from them. They had no respect for my daughter's life.

Mr. Karygiannis: So we should not give them any treatment -

Ms Christie: There's rehabilitation.

Mr. Karygiannis: What kind of rehabilitation would you suggest?

Ms Christie: The 12-year-old involved in my daughter's case; rehabilitate him...?

Mr. Karygiannis: What about the shooter? What would you want to do with him?

Ms Christie: I would like him to serve his full life sentence -

Mr. Karygiannis: Then what? He serves it. He gets out. Does he know any different?

Ms Christie: - but with supervision after he's released.

Mr. Karygiannis: How long?

Ms Christie: For the rest of his life. I'd like his identity to be known. I would like the person he's going to be moving beside to know he's moving in beside them. Every year, I think, their identity should be brought up. Their looks change every year as they get older. Why shouldn't their identity be known?

Mr. Karygiannis: I don't disagree that the identity should be known, but shouldn't we also give them counselling and treatment so that when they get out they are a better person in this society? You're saying after he gets out we should publish his picture, etc. Granted, some of that stuff has merit. But if the person next to him knows who he is, the person who gets out after serving 25 years would try to get a job, would try to get on with his life, but if everybody knows...

I mean, would you hire somebody after they'd spent 25 years in jail?

Ms Christie: No. He lost all those rights when he committed murder.

Mr. Karygiannis: I agree. But if we give him 25 years, he serves his time. Shouldn't there be something in our system that will help him when he gets out to not do that again?

Ms Christie: And I said some type of rehabilitation, with supervision after he's released. Let's face it, he isn't going to serve a full life sentence. He will be getting out of jail and he will be having children in the prime of his life. Again, I wish I had the privilege of seeing my daughter get married and finish school, as had been her plan. These children - and I call them children; I don't call them young offenders, although there are worse words I'd like to call them - knew what they were doing. They had no future, in their minds. They had no careers, the way my daughter did. They were repeat offenders.

Mr. Karygiannis: I agree with you that when somebody is over 12 or 14 and they commit murder, they know what they're doing. But what I'm trying to drive at, and I'm not sure if we're agreeing, is mandatory treatment.

You're in the institution. You've been given adult sentencing. You're treated as an adult. Until you're 18 you stay in the youth institution. After that you get transferred to Kingston Pen - but given mandatory treatment.

As Mary Jane Doe said before, not only is there not enough attention between... We legislate the treatment. We legislate the type of attention this person receives. Whether he or she likes it or not, once they're out, the legislatures and society say that at least we tried the best we could to turn this person around, and we think we did. There's mandatory supervision or whatever else after that.

.1530

Don't you want to see the people who committed these heinous crimes to your daughter receive treatment and be told why it was bad? Don't you want to see mandatory assistance to help them change? I don't mean bleeding heart changes; I mean mandatory. I mean real tough treatment. It's not that I want to walk away from this because the Charter of Rights and Freedoms tells me I can. If you want to walk away from this, that's fine, but you won't get out in 10 years. You'll serve your25 years. If you want early parole, you get this treatment.

Ms Christie: Quite frankly, I believe that after he does serve the 25 years that's still not long enough.

Mr. Karygiannis: But we never treated him, did we? We never assisted him.

Ms Christie: We'll find out when he's released from jail whether or not he's been rehabilitated and treated, won't we?

Mr. Karygiannis: But he doesn't have to accept the treatment.

Ms Christie: Then it should be mandatory, shouldn't it?

Mr. Karygiannis: That's what I'm asking you. Should it not be?

You're a mother who lost her child. I don't wish this on anybody; I have kids of my own. When you speak of your family, it's yours. It's your family. The first reaction is that he did it to me, so I want to do it to him. That's the first reaction anybody has, the animal instinct of an individual. But for 25 years this person serves the time. As Mary Jane Doe said, he learned from other people what to do when he gets out. If we legislate treatment, then we're hoping we're doing something right for when he or she gets out.

Ms Christie: Well, I hope you're right.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Karygiannis.

Ms Torsney.

Ms Torsney: People have told us that one of the advantages of publicizing the names of the individuals is that they can protect themselves. I don't know all the ins and outs of the horrible loss your family went through, but would it have helped in your case if they were neighbours, for instance, or if your daughter did know them? I don't know.

Ms Christie: My daughter knew each and every one of them.

Ms Torsney: So they already had a record?

Ms Christie: Yes.

Ms Torsney: It wasn't a matter of publishing their names in the newspaper. She already knew who they were, and that didn't protect her.

Ms Christie: She knew who they were. There were occurrences with the person who murdered my daughter. I had put occurrences in to the police. The police said until he does something, there's not a thing we can do.

Ms Torsney: Until he does something...?

Ms Christie: To harm her. I wanted a restraining order put on him. The phone calls and threats he made to my daughter weren't good enough for the police to put a restraining order on him.

Ms Torsney: But he already had a record?

Ms Christie: Yes.

Ms Torsney: For different kinds of charges?

Ms Christie: Yes. About the only thing he hadn't done yet is rape.

Ms Torsney: Why did the police tell you that they couldn't do anything about somebody who had a record and was threatening your daughter? They can do things.

Ms Christie: Because she knew this person. This is what they told me. I'm just repeating what they told me. They told me it was because she knew this person and that at one time they were friends. It could just be teenagers with a conflict. Well, it wasn't. I tried to get my point across and nobody would listen to me.

Ms Torsney: There are women right across this country who were married to people they have restraining orders against, and the police are supposed to be acting. I don't know why they treated you this way. That's certainly an issue for us to resolve, because no other family should be subjected to the period of terror beforehand and then ultimately lose their daughter. We have to have other mechanisms in place, no matter who it is, a young offender or an older individual. They just can't be doing that. There needs to be protection for your family beforehand.

Ms Christie: I want to go back to the reason I was saying that I think their phone calls should be revoked. It's because after the murder of my daughter I received five phone calls, and they all came up a private number. I answered them, and do you know what they said to me? Can I speak to Christie, please? They were three-waying their friends from jail and having them phone my house and ask for my daughter, as if I wasn't tortured enough already. This went on five times. I'm still getting crank phone calls. I get taunted by the parents in court.

.1535

Where is my protection for my son, for my baby that I have now? I don't have any.

Ms Torsney: It sounds like there are several things that we need to fix, things beyond the Young Offenders Act.

Ms Christie: Especially in our justice system. There's a lot of work to be done.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms Torsney.

Mr. Maloney.

Mr. Maloney (Erie): I have a question for Ms Christie. There has been a lot of talk about victims having rights too. In this whole process, are there areas where you might have liked to be involved? What rights do you feel you should have had? Would you like to confront this individual face to face? Would you like to be involved in the sentencing process? Do you think it would be helpful for you to confront him? Would it be helpful for him to confront you?

Ms Christie: You know I've never really considered that, because I couldn't imagine... I go to court and look at this person and it just makes me sick. I don't think I could actually communicate with this person. Right now, I'll let the law deal with it and see how far it gets.

Mr. Maloney: Okay.

Ms Christie: I'd love to be there and help with the sentencing. Yes, I would. I'd love to be involved.

Mr. Maloney: How else would you like to be involved?

Ms Christie: As I said, have his privileges taken away. There are a lot of answers I could give you, but in a way I've lost a lot of faith. I keep coming to these meetings and all they are is a rehashing of everything that has happened to me.

Yes, I feel I am the victim. They're getting their three square meals a day, their visits and their phone calls, and they're having their girlfriends come to see them. And soon they'll be getting their conjugal visits where they can start their families.

Mr. Maloney: Thank you for your comments.

The Chair: I'd like to ask a question about the support that you get from either the police or the crown attorney's office. Does the crown attorney's office prosecuting your case have a victim-witness program? Are they talking to you and giving you information? Do you feel like you're at all plugged in to it or are you just left to hang out? You're obviously very articulate, and I'm sure you're not shy about putting forward your position, but is there something there for you?

Ms Christie: To be honest, Tom and I met unfortunately because our family members were murdered. Tom Ambas is the one who has been my supporter.

As far as the victim-witness program is concerned, they were in touch with me once. I've tried to get hold of them numerous times and I haven't received any calls back.

The Chair: So there's not... I used to prosecute so I'm familiar -

Ms Christie: The crown attorney in my case is being very supportive and he's great. He is doing the best...

The Chair: That's what I'm trying to figure out, not to be critical of them, but to see if there are supports in the system.

Ms Christie: I probably have one of the best crown attorneys in Toronto.

The Chair: So what do you think, though? You are obviously articulate. You're not shy. Think of one of your friends who is shy and is not able to stand up for himself or herself. If you were a different personality would you be finding it much tougher to work through the system and -

Ms Christie: Believe me, four months ago I was not this person that I am today. The murder of my daughter has toughened me. I have a cold heart. My heart is warm to my son and to my family. I instilled in my daughter the qualities of being a fighter, of not giving up. I feel that if I instilled them in her, I should look into them for myself. And for my daughter I will fight, and I'll keep fighting until the Young Offenders Act is changed or... They are looking at other angles. But there has to be more help for victims than there is now.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Karygiannis: What other angles, exactly?

.1540

Ms Christie: If somebody would like to come up with something besides changing the Young Offenders Act, I'm willing to -

The Chair: Some options. You're looking for options to consider and obviously you want to continue to be a part of the dialogue.

Ms Christie: Right.

The Chair: Thank you very much for your strength in coming here. We appreciate that.

Ms Christie: Thank you.

The Chair: We'll break for a minute while our next witness joins us.

.1541

.1545

The Vice-Chair (Ms Torsney): I will call the meeting back to order.

The witness before us is from the New Beginnings program in Windsor. His name is Charles Spettigue.

Mr. Charles O. Spettigue (New Beginnings): What I propose to do is provide some background information about what New Beginnings is. Then I thought I would make some general comments about the Young Offenders Act. I would then like to address what New Beginnings proposes as an alternative to current dispositions under the Young Offenders Act. I'll attempt to keep that brief so that there will be room for questions if you or anyone on the panel is interested.

Before I launch into it, appended to our material is a brochure and a general statement about New Beginnings. I don't plan to go through it all, but I offer it to the committee. It states the mission and it addresses, among other things, something that does exist, known as a moral recognition program. I offer it to the committee for their review.

Generally, New Beginnings is the corporate entity in Essex County that operates two 10-bed open custody facilities. They're called the Butch Collins Residence and the Neil Libby Residence. They are located in what is essentially downtown Windsor, Ontario.

New Beginnings is currently developing something that we've termed, at this point in time at least, an attendance care system, which we see as being a potential alternative or precursor to open custody generally. I'll address that in more detail in a moment.

The existing program at New Beginnings is based upon custody. In our residences it involves male persons of 16 or 17 years of age who generally have been convicted of some offence for the second or third time, not necessarily the same offence. In order to warrant custody of some nature, they are repeat offenders. The program attempts to instil a structure and emphasize self-discipline dealing in the overall life of the young offender. Residents who aren't eligible and who don't have employment or who don't attend school become involved in either an in-house school or a life skills program.

The in-house education system offers independent learning courses and we offer, among other things, alternatives that include guest speakers, tours, and videos. The life skills portion of the program focuses on, among other things, nutrition, budgeting, and job readiness.

The moral recognition therapy, or MRT, as it is referred to colloquially, is a moral value-based cognitive learning program. It's currently offered twice a week, and the goal is to challenge the offender to look at ways to change their way of thinking and essentially to change and restructure their beliefs and attitudes. To use the vernacular of the young offender, it at least offers an opportunity to obtain what we call an attitude readjustment.

In order to do this, New Beginnings utilizes community resources that hopefully are tailored to their counselling needs. They include, among other things, substance abuse, anger management, bereavement, and general counselling. A psychologist is available and may or may not provide counselling and testing as required.

There are more details in our appendices, and I offer them to you.

.1550

With respect to an overview of the potential changes to the Young Offenders Act, New Beginnings believes that the Young Offenders Act must be strengthened to provide youth courts with a mechanism to impose meaningful dispositions.

Our general concern, Madam Chair, is that in some instances the current dispositions are limited in their utility, in that public resources are generally used to provide really a custodial disposition that has low-range effectiveness at a high cost. It's our position that low-risk offenders, who are the types sentenced to New Beginnings, ought to be dealt with using some other form of community intervention. The existing custodial system often results in a short disposition, ranging from a few days to several weeks.

New Beginnings believes that although a short, sharp period of detention, as it's often referred to, might deter a minority of young offenders from further criminal conduct, we believe that the majority require a more intensive form of disposition that would involve, and actually emphasize, treatment and therapy. Current dispositions, as has been pointed out, don't normally require or compel young persons to participate in treatment programs.

New Beginnings believes that youth courts ought to be given the flexibility to place young persons in intensive treatment programs. A more workable and logical mechanism needs to be built into the relevant legislation so that, among other things, a young person who has psychological or psychiatric difficulties can be transferred into the mental health system.

In our view, the current system is ill-equipped to manage, let alone rehabilitate, the increasing number of young offenders who come to us with some sort of either psychological or psychiatric difficulty.

New Beginnings does support retaining the current minimum age of 12 years. I know that both the Solicitor General and the Attorney General of Ontario have suggested or hinted at lowering that age range, but it's our submission that the minimum entry level of 12 ought to be maintained.

In addition to the call for reduced age limits, New Beginnings is concerned about what appears to be a public demand for harsher sentences coupled with what appears to be a call for a limiting, if not an absolute abolition, of judicial discretion when it comes to sentencing.

Madam Chair, in R. v. Morrisette, the courts established, for one of the first times, the authority and willingness of courts to impose disparate sentences that could be tailored to an individual circumstance. In Morrisette, it was established that this could be done even when you have two or more persons charged with the same offence.

New Beginnings, however, believes that the current trend in societal attitudes is moving away from individualized sentencing and appears to seek some sort of automatic custodial disposition that would ignore individual needs.

New Beginnings opposes any such narrowing of judicial discretion in that regard. It's been the experience of New Beginnings, Madam Chair, that the proverbial short, sharp sentence of under30 days does little more than emphasize the punitive element of a disposition due to the short period of custody. This is particularly so when you factor in early release for such matters as good behaviour. We believe there is no real meaningful treatment made available to that young person.

The concomitant reflection, or spin-off, of this is that those young persons who are there for a longer period of time, and who are actually involved in some sort of therapeutic treatment, find the movement back and forth of those with a lesser sentence to be disruptive.

At the other extreme, New Beginnings feels that probation, whether you have conditions attached such as curfews, community service or the like, really don't provide the young person with any sort of structure. It is our submission that a disposition that emphasizes and instils a routine structure in its requirement is more significant, given current societal attitudes as they exist today.

Anecdotally, we make mention of the movement in Michigan toward legislated parental responsibility. When we take that and compare it with the comments of Attorney General Harnick and Solicitor General Runciman regarding their intention to explore legislated parental civil accountability, New Beginnings feels that the proposal we have for you today, which is attendance care, cannot be developed in isolation. New Beginnings feels that one of the current flaws of existing open custody is the inability of the system to compel parental participation, whether it's in a probationary sentence or a more formal custodial disposition.

.1555

New Beginnings believes that any alteration of the current young offender system must be sensitive to changes to the relevant legislation at the provincial level. New Beginnings also believes that it would be beneficial to the young person to have parents involved. However, at New Beginnings we are also sensitive to what we perceive to be a very wide minefield of potential issues that surround involving, or somehow compelling, parental participation in the sentence.

Madam Chairman, as I mentioned, New Beginnings proposes a new alternative to custodial disposition, which we have, at least for now, described as an attendance centre. New Beginnings proposes that the need for such an alternative form of disposition has again become more immediate, given certain comments made by the Attorney General and the Solicitor General. If age limits are to be lowered, then of course there will clearly be an increase in the number of young persons brought into the system. We support the comments made by Attorney General Harnick, Solicitor General Runciman and Justice Minister Allan Rock, in the sense that they do seek alternatives to custodial disposition.

New Beginnings feels that for those young persons charged with non-violent offences, particularly when they are charged with the first or second offence only, attendance centres offer a viable alternative to short-term custodial dispositions. This is especially so when the custodial disposition under the current system would amount to a sentence of less than 90 days.

We stress that this theory or proposal is still in the developmental stage; however, New Beginnings envisages an attendance centre operating as a form of disposition that would be less onerous than open custody and more intensive and interactive than the current probation system. New Beginnings proposes that attendance centres would necessarily require a disposition of approximately four to six months. It is our belief that you can't really make any therapeutic progress in any shorter period of time.

New Beginnings believes the system could be integrated into the current system by using an application method similar to that currently in place for alternative measures, or alternatively, by using the probation order as a vehicle to compel attendance. The current probation services operation could include, as part of an application screening process or as part of an analysis before disposition, an assessment of the suitability of the young person for participation at an attendance centre.

If a person were determined to be a suitable candidate for participation at an attendance centre, the disposition order could include attendance at the centre on a daily basis, again, for a period of some four to six months, or perhaps even longer if it were determined that it would be beneficial.

Treatment would be based on daily, full-time attendance, which would involve intensive daily regimes stressing treatment and therapy geared to cognitive restructuring and the development of a sense of moral responsibility. The program would be tailored to the individual. The program would emphasize moral reclamation and personal responsibility. New Beginnings believes this is consistent with the current objectives of the Young Offenders Act as they've been set out in sections 3 and 4 of the act.

New Beginnings' experience has been that the majority of young persons involved in the young offenders system come into the system lacking a basic daily structure, including a lack of self-discipline. The attendance care program would emphasize individual responsibility in establishing and adhering to a daily routine. Participation would be rewarded or encouraged by individual living credits based on a point-level system similar to what is currently in place at New Beginnings.

In New Beginnings' experience, a typical young offender lacks structure and discipline, as noted, and as a result, an attendance care system would emphasize such things as time management. New Beginnings also envisages incorporating an educational aspect that would be similar to the method currently available to young persons sentenced to either open or secure custody.

For young persons who do maintain regular attendance at school, the program could be geared to operate after school and on weekends. This would involve a further aspect in that the suspension of free time or after-school activities would enforce a punitive element and again emphasize personal responsibility for actions. In other words, it would link a consequence to an act.

.1600

In order to instil and facilitate a sense of moral responsibility and a sense of respect for community property, the program would also incorporate a form of community service. However, rather than simply sentencing a young person to sweep an arena floor, the community service programs would be geared toward local improvement. We would target those types of community programs that would leave a tangible and noticeable change on the face of the community. Some of the possibilities we've envisaged include cleaning up and revitalizing vacant lots, working on municipal parkways and improving green areas.

It's our submission - and we bear in mind Solicitor General Runciman's comments about the cost related to maintaining young offenders in secure custody - that if an effective sentencing mechanism involving treatment-oriented dispositions is promulgated, then attendance centres will offer a less costly and more efficient program that emphasizes individual rehabilitation based on cognitive restructuring at an early age.

New Beginnings submits that the attendance centres offer a therapeutic form of intervention at an early stage of the young offender's life, so that with a program of cognitive restructuring a young person would be able to change his or her individual paradigm and therefore develop and expand his or her moral capacity to understand the consequences of his or her actions. Again, this would facilitate them in making the serious choices Attorney General Harnick referred to on Monday.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

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

We have some time for questions. Madam Cohen.

Ms Cohen (Windsor - St. Clair): I don't often get to ask questions here, so I'm pleased.

I want to first of all welcome Mr. Spettigue, whom I've known for some time. He is a lawyer in Essex County.

Can you please clarify your role with New Beginnings?

Mr. Spettigue: I have the privilege of serving as a director on the board.

Ms Cohen: Mr. Spettigue also does some criminal work, and did a lot of young offenders work opposite me when I was a crown, so it's a coincidence that we're both here - not completely a coincidence; I had something to do with it. It's just coincidental that we can have someone who has a variety of experiences appear in front of us.

We heard from Messrs. Harnick and Runciman on Monday. Their take on the Young Offenders Act seems to be that its main role is to deter criminals from developing and to deter young people from offending. I would take issue with that. I would quote my colleague Ms Torsney, vice-chair of this committee, that our goal should be to prevent people from being victimized any further, period, and that we should be looking at this review of the statute as a way to encourage practices in our communities that would avoid crimes being committed in the first place.

Having said that, does New Beginnings find that it's possible to treat the kids who come into your custody in the short period of time you have them? That's one.

Two, do you find that in terms of treatment or in terms of the programs you've undertaken with them you're able to identify those who are going to be back as opposed to those who won't? Is there that capability to predict with some certainty that a young person won't be back?

Finally, is there enough support there for your work? I appreciate times are tough. We all know that. Having said that, are there other supports in the community for your work?

Mr. Spettigue: I'll see if I can get those in order, Madam Cohen. First, our concern is that the shorter sentences...and you have to appreciate that sentencing or disposition is an escalating thing. First offence more often than not results in something like alternative measures, or perhaps probation. So it takes an escalation before the young person comes into an open custody situation, first of all. Because of that, by the time they get there they come with quite a lot of baggage and a variety of social issues. Again, the first time a young offender sees New Beginnings it might be for a period of 10 or 15 days, something of that nature, depending on the crime.

.1605

In my personal experience it really requires several offences to have accumulated before the young person gets 15 to 21 days there. The bottom line is that New Beginnings feels that period of time is simply too short. You can't affect the vernacular attitudinal adjustment in that short period of time. That's where the four- to six-month theory for attendance centres came from.

So I guess the first answer is, no, we don't feel we can do much in a very short period of time. We do, however, believe intervention that doesn't wrap around custody, or have custody as its preliminary basis, could be effective. The way we see the attendance care system operating is that it would be wholly separate from a New Beginnings centre. Somebody - I think a detractor - suggested we were really offering a day care centre for 13-year-olds. I think that's a little glib, but the point is that it would not require an overnight stay within a monthly stay, if you will.

Is there support in the community? I think it's too early in our development of the proposal to really ascertain that either way.

Ms Cohen: I was just thinking about the programs that are in existence now. Is there a support system in the community? Does the crown attorney support you? Are defence lawyers and crowns using it? Are the police friendly to the goals of New Beginnings? Do businesses...?

Mr. Spettigue: I think as a whole they are. There still is some jaded opinion, if you will, that says, oh, he's in for 10 days, he's out - big deal. There is some of that. But I think the overall position is that it's generally well perceived. We don't have as much ability to offer the aftercare we would prefer to do, particularly if someone did get the benefit of a 90- or 120-day sentence, where the therapy could be impacted. We're not in a position financially to do the follow-up after that.

As a general rule, though, I think we're well perceived.

Ms Cohen: Those are my questions. Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Ms Torsney): Mr. Maloney.

Mr. Maloney: This new attendance centre you've suggested, does it exist now?

Mr. Spettigue: No, it doesn't. It's actually quite early for us in the development stage. We're not aware of any equivalent existing elsewhere.

Mr. Maloney: This would be during the day, and they would go home to their regular homes.

Mr. Spettigue: Yes.

Mr. Maloney: What do you do in a situation where they're coming from really dysfunctional families, where they're going back to their peer groups? Are there curfews? Who's going to look out for them after 4 p.m.?

Mr. Spettigue: That's it. That is one of the issues we'd like to address in the sense that you have an abusive or addictive parent, perhaps. That's why we say over a period of three, four, five, six months, where they're going home in the evening and running the risk of being drawn back into the fold, running with the peer group. If you get them back again at 9 a.m. the next day, hopefully you can address some of the emotions and issues that occurred the evening before.

But the risk is that they'll be drawn back into the fold and erase the early gains. There is that risk. One of the ways of dealing with that is probation, if that were the manner of compelling attendance at the centre. It could also utilize such things as curfews, abstention and so on. Abstention is sort of moot in the sense that no child at this stage should be involved in anything in any event. You could factor in some of those other safeguards, but you'll never wholly and absolutely eradicate it. By the same token, if they are back into that setting, you can hopefully, as I say, help them deal with it on a daily basis.

.1610

Mr. Maloney: We were at a centre this week called Portage out in Elora. You may be familiar with it.

Mr. Spettigue: Yes, I know it.

Mr. Maloney: That centre followed the concept of AA, where from time to time the clients help each other. I might have a bad day this day, Ms Torsney may have a bad day the next day or in the evening, etc. Again, this is on a 24-hour-a-day basis. They seemed to think it was important and that not everyone has a problem dealing with their substance abuse or whatever. At the same time, do you perceive that as a problem?

Mr. Spettigue: Clearly you lose the intensity; there's no question. If they go home to that element, whether it's the friends on the corner or an abusive parent or whatever the issue is, they lose the intensity from 5 p.m. until the next morning. That's very true. However, what we're trying to do is look at what it currently takes to get a person into a situation such as Portage and offer some alternative so that they don't have to commit that level of crime to get there.

I do agree that turning off the intensity for a period is a concern we have.

Mr. Maloney: Would you conceive of having a counsellor on call during the evening or24 hours a day if you're having a problem? It would be someone these kids could come back to if they're feeling themselves getting into a bad situation.

Mr. Spettigue: It's almost a buddy system.

Mr. Maloney: Yes, a buddy system.

Mr. Spettigue: Yes, we believe in that.

Mr. Maloney: Do you have peer counselling at all in your existing facility?

Mr. Spettigue: Yes, there is some group therapy. That again is why we say that if a young person is only there for a week, not only does that person not get much advantage from that, but it disrupts those people who are part of that group for three weeks or five weeks. For example, your trust parameters are always changing. It might take a young person five or six days to get to the point where they can speak in a group. If their sentence is only ten days, then they're gone.

Mr. Maloney: Would you envisage a transitional period? They would go into your existing facility now for 24-hour care for 10, 15, or 30 days or whatever it takes, and then gradually even out into your day care, as you would put it?

Mr. Spettigue: To be frank, we hadn't considered that. Hearing it today it certainly sounds commendable, sir, but I must be frank that we hadn't considered that aspect of it.

Mr. Maloney: How would you envisage the cost of this operation? We're told that to put a child into a custodial facility now costs us $100,000 a year, more or less. What does it cost for the existing facility that you run now and what do you envisage the cost of your proposed attendance centre to be?

Mr. Spettigue: I'm not the best person to tell you the day-by-day cost of our existing facility. It is, however, less onerous. As I understood it, the $100,000 went to secure custody, which is a more rigorous facility than we have. Ours has fewer restrictions. It's like a large community apartment building, if you will. I apologize; I just don't have the figures. I don't think they would be as high as $100,000, but certainly they're considerably more than the $5 or $6 that I think was the figure for probation. We see this as coming somewhere in between.

Mr. Maloney: Perhaps we could move to some of the problems and concerns of the Young Offenders Act. I'd like to have some comments on this from your perspective. What do the clients who come to your existing facility think of the Young Offenders Act? Do they think the way they're being dealt with is a joke?

Mr. Spettigue: Drawing from both my practical experience and my experience as director, I guess I would have to say that more kids see the system as extremely lenient than as rigorous, yes.

Mr. Maloney: Should that be changed? If so, how would we change it in a constructive way?

Mr. Spettigue: My own gut reaction is that one of the ways is to start at an earlier age. Again, you have all the difficulties you addressed before. If you send a child back into the community unarmed, as it were, then there's a risk of falling back into that peer situation.

.1615

The Vice-Chair (Ms Torsney): Putting a child back into the community unarmed...?

Mr. Spettigue: Unarmed with the life skills and the therapies. I'm sorry; I didn't mean to suggest weapons or anything of that nature.

Most of the problems we encounter stem from some broader social issues, whether they be poverty or lack of parental support or whatever else. If you send the child back into the community without any sort of education in how to cope with that, you send them back just for an escalation. If you can instil life skills and these types of things at an earlier age, then we believe there's a possibility of rehabilitation.

How do I see that affecting or impacting? There's got to be the therapeutic end of it. Simply incarcerating, simply saying ``You're locked in your room for 20 days'' I don't believe offers that child any improvement. If anything, it leads to resentment and hostility, and ``Boy, as soon as I get out of here I'm going to start smoking my cigarettes again'' - or abusing, or whatever the issue might be.

How do you solve it? I wish I had all the answers. My gut reaction is that you need the therapeutic and the cognitive end of it.

Mr. Maloney: You've indicated that you're in support of keeping the lower limit at 12 years of age. You've also presented that we should have earlier intervention. We've heard today and previously of youth at 10 or 11 getting involved in serious crime. A lady from London said her boy started stealing cars at 11 years of age.

Should there be some situations and some instances in which we would involve the child at an earlier age, younger than 12, in the criminal process - an application to, say, a provincial court judge at youth court?

Mr. Spettigue: I could see where that has some effect, if only from a fear aspect.

Mr. Maloney: Fear by whom?

Mr. Spettigue: Well, if you bring a younger child into the criminal system in the sense of appearing before the judge, there can be a fear consequence, a fear element in that. I don't know how strongly that works in its own way. I think that's really a last resort.

If a younger person is brought in, we think it's got to be again more directed toward a therapy end. Simply lumping a 13-year-old into a situation where his peers are all 15 and 16 and there are no therapeutic answers, but it is just time, is not different from sticking him in prison, in the sense that he is going to learn the skills of the prison. You're going to learn to be a bit tougher. As the woman before me said, there's going to be a hardening of the heart in that way.

Our concern is that the whole push to lower the age level is really a retributive, vengeful system. It's a cry for just locking people up, and we're very concerned about that. We believe it's got to be intervention with some form of counselling. You can structure it. Whether you structure it on a portage system or as part of a probationary system, we think the way to deal with it is somehow to instil skills that allow the person to deal with those broader social issues.

You're not going to sit here today and legislate away poverty or abuse or any of those things that might occur. So the alternative we see is somehow to provide skills that will allow a person to cope without acting out in what clearly is a socially unacceptable method.

Mr. Maloney: I will draw on your experience as a lawyer and also as director of the facility. Do you feel that the aspect of confidentiality, not releasing the offender's name, has a significant impact, an additional value, by not doing it, and an additional value by doing it? How do you feel about that subject?

Mr. Spettigue: My own philosophy as a lawyer - and this doesn't necessarily reflect the New Beginnings theory - is that there ought to be that confidentiality aspect.

.1620

In terms of sheer numbers, again, for the majority of young offenders, even if they get to the stage where custody seems to be the appropriate disposition given our current precedent system, it usually involves things like B and Es or repeated thefts of smaller amounts of items, such as cigarettes and clothing. Fortunately the example of the woman before me, who lost her daughter, is still a reasonably rare phenomenon in Canadian society. It's getting a lot of press, but it's still reasonably rare in Canadian society.

I personally don't believe we should necessarily be branding young persons with the label of ``criminal'' for the rest of their lives. I read an anecdotal article where a stockbroker speaks of the fact that he had some problems as an 18- or 19-year-old, involving marijuana and a few things. He said, ``Look, that shouldn't hold me back from promoting a stock today. You have Kim Campbell and Bill Clinton who at least acknowledge being near the stuff at one moment in time.''

I maintain that type of philosophy. If a young person of 14, 15 or 16 - somewhere in there - makes an error, you don't brand them for the rest of their lives, in my theory. So I guess the short answer is that I advocate the confidentiality aspect of it.

I can appreciate some of the frustrations. Some people think the name ought to be brandished about. I've seen the extreme, where communities are putting pictures of pedophiles on telephone poles and fences, that sort of thing. My own philosophy - and again, this isn't necessarily the philosophy of New Beginnings - is that when you adopt that sort of thing, you're moving back to the medieval sense of literally branding a thief a thief, and I don't see that as a viable system.

Mr. Maloney: Would you draw a distinction between the petty crimes you mentioned, involving marijuana or shoplifting, and serious crimes of violence? Does the public have a right to know, do you think?

Mr. Spettigue: There's clearly a balancing of the public's right versus the right to privacy and that type of thing. Again, it comes down to the offence.

Mr. Maloney: Well, that's what I'm saying. Do you draw a distinction there? Do you think there should be disclosure of high-level offences, or serious offences: murders, rapes, assault causing bodily harm, etc.?

Mr. Spettigue: My personal philosophy is it shouldn't be disclosed at all. I know that's not a popular view, but that's my personal philosophy.

Mr. Maloney: I have no more questions. Thank you.

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

I have a couple of questions for you. Whichever hat you want to wear, you can answer the questions.

Are you satisfied with the services available in your community to address the needs of young people, whether they're already in conflict with the law or they're headed for conflict with the law?

Mr. Spettigue: Am I satisfied? No.

The Vice-Chair (Ms Torsney): What's missing?

Mr. Spettigue: Well, if I may... New Beginnings is in Windsor. I actually hail from a smaller community called Leamington.

The Vice-Chair (Ms Torsney): Tomatoes.

Mr. Spettigue: Yes, it's the tomato capital of the world.

There are very few social programs, if any, there of any sort for any young person. The community does have a very nice sports complex, a pool, etc., but beyond that, there's little or no social organization, no safety net. So a young person really has to get into the criminal system before there's any consideration of assistance and aid.

I just had an example where a young woman - she was actually 19 at the relevant time - went through some very difficult personal times and was acting out in the sense that she was very lonely and definitely suffering some emotional pain and trauma. She had no friends or peer group or anything. The only way this young lady could see to somehow gain friendship and contact was to write letters to another girl of about her age, sign them with a fictitious third-party name and suggest that this other person ought to be friends with her. She was trying to drive that person to her. It took some effort. And again, I heard the comments about victim impact statements. The young lady who received the letters wrote a two-page or three-page victim impact statement that gave details of her trauma, details about how she was afraid to look and to walk at night and all that sort of thing.

.1625

But we've had tangible medical evidence. This young person could have benefited from some counselling and therapy. The only way it was available to her in a small community like Leamington was if she entered a guilty plea and was placed on probation. There was no social mechanism through which she could somehow be diagnosed or could go to somebody to say she was in trouble and needed help. She had to enter the criminal system to get any assistance.

So do I see any? No, I don't.

The Vice-Chair (Ms Torsney): And what about the parents? Are there enough supports for the parents who are trying to work with their children? I'm sure that every day you meet parents who say they need help, who say they have management problems and can't deal with their child's acting-out behaviour. And between the school and the parents they are trying, but they either don't have the inherent skills or this kid is a special problem. Are there tools for them?

Mr. Spettigue: I would say there are, but on an extraordinarily limited basis. I have structured dispositions where parents have been involved in some counselling as well, but I haven't relied on one of those for about five years. I'm not sure that particular program even exists any more.

Again, as a rule, and if you want to use Leamington as a microcosm, they're not available. If they were to be available in that area, they would involve a minimum 40-minute drive to either Windsor or Chatham. And then you start getting into all the other factors, such as the parents' jobs and dealing with the other three children in the family or whatever. I haven't kept up on the one program I have in mind, but my gut reaction is no, they are extraordinarily limited if they exist at all.

The Vice-Chair (Ms Torsney): And in both those cases you gave us, for the parents and the young woman who had to plead guilty, a crime has already been committed before these things are kicking in.

What about the kids who you know in your community of Leamington? Based on your experience you have a pretty good indication that the 6-year-old who's acting out and doing certain things... We know Dr. Leschied in London, Ontario has developed some predictors. There is that 6-year-old you see at church sometimes on Sunday whose parents are trying to do a good job, but this kid is headed towards being one of your future clients...but he hasn't actually broken the law yet. Are there services for those people, for the kids and the parents?

Mr. Spettigue: Not that I am aware of, Madam Chair. No, I don't see that. I've had the other extreme. I think you asked if the kids perceive it as a joke and I've had two circumstances...

I can think of one instance where very low-income, low-means parents are throwing up their hands and asking the judge to place the child on probation. Then their manner of dealing with the child is just to phone the police every time they run into difficulties.

In the other situation, I've had very frustrated parents stand in my office screaming at me about having six or eight 15-year-olds cleaning out their liquor cabinet and uttering a few oaths and telling the parents to go away because I'm just going to get them off.

As I perceive it today, there's a very limited mechanism in place for any of those issues.

The Vice-Chair (Ms Torsney): Mr. Maloney, do you have any more questions?

My only other question is about the aftercare. It seems like that's something, a facility that a lot of kids could benefit from, whether it's a day program they attend from time to time when they're having new issues or some kind of mandated buddy system or something that they could... In Syl Apps we met a young person who was in the seven-step program. He knew he was going to need help on the outside. Even at Elora, at Portage, we met kids who now recognize the signals and know when they need to source help. But they can't come back for a day at Portage because no one will fund them.

.1630

Would you think it would be helpful, if you were standing before a judge, if you had some dispositions that said those services would somehow be made available to you after your six-month or one-year term with New Beginnings and somebody would work on funding this?

Mr. Spettigue: Assuming the proverbial funding came, yes, then I think that could be a very viable and necessary part of it. If you're going to teach the skill, you have to have something to follow up on. You don't give them a grade 12 diploma, kick them out and say, there, you have everything you need to deal with the world.

So, yes, I think aftercare follow-up ought to be available.

The Vice-Chair (Ms Torsney): Thank you very much for coming all the way from Windsor, and I'm sorry that we're going to let you out in that GTA traffic jam on the 401. It's probably worth spending an hour in beautiful Scarborough instead of getting on that highway, because it's not going to be great for you.

But to the people of Scarborough who have come today, it's been terrific to be here and to hear various testimonies and ideas about how to make changes to the Young Offenders Act to improve it for everybody. Your members of Parliament, Mr. Cannis, Mr. Lee, Mr. Wappel andMr. Karygiannis, made sure we got here, and so we're very happy that they pestered us to be here - although Shaughnessy may have wished that we were in Windsor and I would have wished we were in Burlington. It's a been a good day and there have been lots of good points of view expressed.

For those of you who are also out there, this committee will be adjourned shortly. We will be hearing from people in western Canada and northern Canada and Quebec probably in the fall and we'll be making our recommendations to the minister sometime before Christmas. I think that's still our agenda. All citizens are always welcome to send submissions to members of Parliament or to the committee, and I encourage you to tell your friends to do that, because if we don't hear from people with ideas we can't enact them. So that message needs to be brought forward as well.

Thank you very much. The meeting is adjourned.

Return to Committee Home Page