Normal.dotm 0 0 1 4274 24365 GAP Manitoba Inc. 203 48 29921 12.0 0 false 18 pt 18 pt 0 0 false false false
On March 30, 2010, I was part of a group of people that were invited to speak in front of 12 Members of Parliament with a focal point on gangs. I have copied and pasted only my portion of the evidence presented.
WARNING: It's a LONG read...
For the full text with everyone, please click here:
40th PARLIAMENT, 3rd SESSION
Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights
EVIDENCE
CONTENTS
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Mr. Floyd Wiebe (Executive Director, Gang Awareness for Parents):
Thank you very much for inviting me to participate in this committee.
I'm probably the only person to appear before this committee who wishes he wasn't. My 20-year-old son TJ was brutally murdered on January 5, 2003. His murder was well planned by four young men aged 17 to 20. He was beaten by two of them, injected in the neck with Drano, strangled with a shoelace while being pulled by his neck over the front seat of a car, stripped of most of his clothing, dumped in a ditch where one of them did jumping jacks on his chest, and stabbed multiple times in the neck, only to be found five weeks later under three feet of snow.
Three people were convicted. Two of them received life sentences with a chance of parole after 15 years. One is up for parole in just a few weeks. The 17-year-old mastermind was acquitted after they all refused to testify against him.
This was my beginning of a journey that brought me here today. What started with rage and disbelief ended in a devotion to prevention. My wife Karen, who is sitting behind me, and I created the TJ's Gift Foundation, now a registered charity, which raises $50,000 a year, with 100% of that money going to peer-led drug education programs in Manitoba schools.
I recently left the business world, and just eight weeks ago the Manitoba Department of Justice invested in my new organization, called GAP, Gang Awareness for Parents. My mission is to educate parents before their children get involved in gangs, and offer guidance to help them.
This journey has not been easy. It has been heartbreaking, depressing, enlightening, and rewarding. During these seven years I have talked with far too many victims and I have met many drug-addicted youth, gang wannabes, and street gang members.
How did these individuals end up where they are? There's really no greater gift than that of being a parent, and yet so many abuse and squander this gift. When our youth are abused and squandered, in many cases they end up being cared for by the system.
We've all been raised with the adage that it takes a village to raise a child, but the problem is that we throw many of these children in jail. An example of this is when we see kids stealing cars. They are incarcerated over and over again, and now we want to throw them in jail for even longer. Is that how we want to raise our children? Is that what we want to do with the gift that we were given as a community when they were abandoned? Do we continue this cycle and toss them away? No. We treat them, we stand by them, we help them, we care for them, and we believe in them.
Last week I was in a Toronto conference on gangs. I listened and talked with many former gang members who had turned their lives around. Not one told me that being in jail or the threat of being in jail turned them around. I asked what did. They told me that people standing by them and believing in them turned them around. That is what they needed, someone to care for them. Someone in the village cared. Now these abused and abandoned people are caring for others. That truly is a village raising a child.
The public is demanding that the government do something about the state of gangs in Canada, so changes are being made to the YCJA: more mandatory minimum sentences, longer sentences, and as a result, many more people in jails. The Canadian government is presently spending $1,000 a day on the incarceration of three of my son's murderers. This case alone costs $360,000 a year. This cost will go on for many, many years, and in my case justifiably so, as they murdered my son. We are not talking about the average person who goes to jail. This was murder. I can't help but wonder, though, why we couldn't have invested that thousand dollars a day--or even half of that--on prevention. Maybe I would not have to be here addressing this panel.
I use the term “investment”, and I'm glad Paul used that word as well, rather than “spending”. We invest to gain returns. We spend when mistakes are made.
This is the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. I thought it was an appropriate title. With the justice part, it needs to be handed out when dealing with organized crime and gangs. It is difficult to write laws that are specific enough to do what is intended or needed. Generally they are too broad. I believe the laws should somehow--and I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know how--be written to deal with gangs that are part of the higher-level organized gang and their puppet clubs. I do believe that this country needs to crack down on these gangs.
I personally know a puppet club member who was recently arrested in Winnepeg. I've know him since the day he was born. This person did not come from a disadvantaged background. He made choices along the way, all the time knowing what may lie ahead of him. He knew what he was doing.
He made a lot of money. He lived the life, he drove fast cars, and he had all the toys. Only now, when he is facing 12 years, is he realizing that he needs to change. He had just gotten out of jail after several years and was attempting to change, or so he told me just a month before he was arrested. However, he fell back into it very shortly, but he knew the consequences when he fell back in and he still made a choice. He is not unlike anyone else in these puppet clubs; in fact, he is the norm—and I'm sure you've heard about those kinds of gangs in other cities.
However, each province has unique gangs in their cities. The street gangs that exist in Winnipeg do not exist in Vancouver, Toronto, or other cities. The street-level gangs need to be handled differently, with an understanding of how these young people got to where they are. Today, judges take aboriginal ancestry and upbringing into play. When considering sentencing, the judge will often reduce that sentence; in fact, it's demanded of him or her. That same type of consideration needs to be given to these lower-level gang members.
When I meet with street gang members, and I have met many, they are a completely different story from the person I was referring to above. Every single one got there as a result of poverty, mental illness, being in a variety of foster homes, and a whole host of other reasons. The other presenters here today, such as Just TV and Turning the Tides, work with these young people and have huge success with keeping them out of gangs. I hope my organization will do the same. There are many groups like this that are trying to save these kids. In fact, they're all meeting today, coincidentally, two floors below us.
The other component of this committee is human rights. As a country—the village—it is our children's human rights to receive every opportunity to survive and prosper. Unfortunately, not everyone will. Some will fall through the cracks. We need to be there to pick up the pieces. Yesterday I read that the Canadian government wants to increase its prison budget by 27% to $3.1 billion. I encourage this committee to press the government to take 100% of this anticipated increase away from the prison budget and reallocate every cent into human rights, into prevention. This reversal would mean an investment in our country's future and would not even be considered by the public as a cost at all.
I know the cost of a life gone.
I just wish that someone would have invested in and cared for TJ's murderers. Maybe they would have cared about themselves, and maybe they would have cared about TJ.
Thank you.
Mr. Brian Murphy (Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, Lib.):
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, witnesses, for being here.
I think we're particularly touched, Mr. and Mrs. Wiebe, by your experience. We have met many victims' representatives over the years that I've been here. It is quite interesting that many turn from an initial or perhaps an ongoing shock or dismay to a realization that what they wish to spend effort on in the future is prevention and “what could have been”. Some, however—and I think you probably agree—understandably are not as willing to think about prevention but are willing to think about what we would call justice. That's understandable. We take it very seriously; it's the first-hand evidence of victims.
I'm struck as well that the theme of the panel is prevention and intervention with youth at risk, if you like. We are here studying organized crime, and I have a couple of questions. I'll just make them brief.
There are people in Ottawa who are thinking of national programs such as a national service policy for youth. I understand that there's a provincial-federal cut-off, and that many of these programs we speak of are provincially mandated. Is there something nationally we can look at in terms of getting the youth engaged and getting them diverted?
Secondly, is the victims ombudsman office helpful in any way? There's a fair amount of money there. There's going to be a new ombudsman sometime soon. Is there something that can be done with that to improve things?
Finally, and probably this is the first point I'd like you to address, we're assuming that youth are either directly involved or are pawns in organized crime or higher-level crimes. I met with some Winnipeg police officers a year or so ago who suggested that some gang elders or gang older members will use the persons who are within the age range of the Youth Criminal Justice Act to do acts—steal cars, or whatever—thus insulating themselves from blame. If you have time, perhaps you could talk about the specific use of youth and actions of youth towards gaining what we've all learned is the manna of criminal activity and of organized crime especially: money.
Mr. Floyd Wiebe:
First of all, to answer your last question first, when you were talking about the victims ombudsman, I think that Bill C-43 before the House is absolutely perfectly written. It addresses many concerns from victims.
In fact, we are attending a parole hearing just weeks from now, and it's crazy how they decide how it's done. The murderer sits in front of me, we have to sit behind him. We're not allowed to look at him, we're not allowed to look at him. He's not allowed to look at us. How archaic is this? This person murdered somebody, we're there, and we're asked to come and give a victim impact statement about how this person affected our lives.
First of all, we have to present our speech two weeks ahead of time so he gets to read it before. Then after he reads our victim impact statement, he can just go, “Well, I'm not meeting with these parents; I forgo my stuff.” So it puts us through a massive hell up to that point. That is all being changed, as I understand it. I have asked, actually, this next parole board if I can actually face him, and we'll see. I have not been told that I can, so we'll see. This addresses that.
As far as the national program, I know many of us here are all talking about what's happening today locally and what we're all doing for prevention. I think at the federal level, there are funds available to help eliminate organized crime, etc., but try to apply for them. I would invite every person on this panel to go and download some of these applications and try to fill them out yourself. Don't get a lawyer involved, don't get anybody else involved, but try to fill them out yourself. Paul referred to how much time we spend--and I'm the newbie here, I've only been in business for seven weeks. My wife has tried to fill out some of these applications. So when you talk about what can be done, that can be done.
I addressed to this committee at the very end of my speech how I just cannot understand how we as a country can have a 27% increase in funding to build more prisons and hire 4,000 new staff. Hire 4,000 new staff? Take that 4,000 new staff and direct them into prevention programs. To me, that's not even a question, because I believe the 4,000 people working previous to gang involvement can certainly help every single person who goes into that jail way more before they get there. That's my personal opinion. And to answer what the federal level can do perfectly, it's that right there. To me, that's absolutely a no-brainer.
We have had a bit of a debate ongoing—including yesterday, when it was fairly prominent—about whether we should deal with organized street gangs differently than we do with the traditional stereotyped Mafia, Cosa Nostra types of groups, or the bikers. I'd like to hear from you if you have any comments on that. Can we use our traditional methods of fighting those groups, that is, by getting at the money sources and other mechanisms, or do we approach these differently?
I want to go that far because there was some discussion about whether we should have, within our Criminal Code or criminal justice system, a different definition for street gangs or youth gangs from what we presently use, still recognizing that they are somewhat organized but different from the adult ones.
Mr. Floyd Wiebe:
I think in my speech I referred to that very instance. When I read the new bill--I've read so many bills in the last few days, fourteen or fifteen, I don't remember which one it was--where it discusses organized crime, basically, as I recall, it's just a very simple one-liner, that if there are five or more people getting together and doing a crime that's an indictable offence, they constitute organized crime. I'm sorry, but five little Mad Cowz who are 13 years old are not the same as five Zig Zag Crew members or five Hells Angels getting together and creating a crime.
As I said, I'm not a lawyer. I don't know how you can define that. Currently, organized crime laws are already a horrible thing, because every time the courts get it, it falls apart. We built a huge courthouse in Manitoba, five or eight years ago, and it fell apart. The legal department, the justice department, really needs to take this, analyze it, and actually split it.
I'm saying, similar to aboriginal sentencing, somehow we got to the point where we sentence aboriginal people in this country different from other people because of how they got to where they are and how they got to create that crime. How can we then not do the same thing with organized crime, because it's just too broad?
I've met too many of these kids in the Youth Drug Stabilization Act. I've met too many kids at coffee shops—with Kelly, in fact. You have this little kid who comes from a horrible situation, and he has his bros and he has his homies, and they go out and do some stupid things like steal cars, and some of them steal a lot of cars. My truck was stolen by one of them. Yet you cannot take those same kids and treat them exactly the same under one bill that says “You're five people and you were doing something that's an indictable offence, so we're going to treat you the same as a Hells Angel.” I fear that, because with judges today—and believe me, I've been in front of a lot of them—this judge will do this and this judge will do that, and you need that input to those judges from the attorneys, from the prosecutors, that these are not the same. They cannot be just put into jail because of this law.
Mrs. Alexandra Mendes (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.):
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Thank you to all of you for being here.
I know you've just touched on that subject, but I really would like to see it from the federal level. What could we do? What could the federal government do to avoid the recruitment of underage children to commit adult crimes? The bottom line is that's what they're used for. How can we help? I know the funding is a big part of it, and I defend it fully, but are there suggestions from the justice department or from the victims ombudsman, as my colleague mentioned? Are there ways to plead?
Mr. Floyd Wiebe:
If you realize, the people in this room, that it's your budget that controls the $3.1 billion in prisons--it's your budget here, right?--I think it makes sense, then, for you to figure out, with the ten provinces, why you're inheriting all those people from the provinces into your federal prisons. You're the one who is paying for it.
If you want to reduce how much you spend on that, then I think you need to listen to all of these people here who are all doing provincially--most of us, provincially--because we're actually the ones who are trying to prevent the ones ending up federally....
When you ask, Mr. Fast, that we might deal with federal issues, to me that makes the most sense. It is a federal issue when the provinces are dealing with all of the funding for all these prevention programs. I think getting all those people in the room makes total sense, getting what he said--the provincial level, making it federal.... Your question is absolutely right on.
Mrs. Maria Mourani (Ahuntsic, BQ):
Good morning, everyone. Thank you very much for being here today and sharing your testimony with us.
Mr. Wiebe, first, I would like to offer you my sincere condolences on the loss of your son. I admire your courage and also your great humanity. Losing a member of our family can sometimes leave us feeling extremely angry and blind. I welcome your testimony, because of the strong emphasis on compassion, prevention, and trying to save children before they become criminals.
I am also a member of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. A few days ago, we heard the Minister of Public Safety and all the other officials. My question was specifically about prevention. In the current budget, and subsequent budgets, there is really no increase in terms of prevention, and this was confirmed to me. The budget varies between $30 million and $60 million for the whole of Canada.
I am looking at you, and you seem to be exceptional people, in your need to rescue young people, even though you have only crumbs, little bits of money, to do it with. Looking at the budget, we see that there is still no increase. This was the first point I wanted to confirm, that there will be no increase for prevention. That has been the case for several years, going back before the present government.
I would also like to talk to you about the Young Offenders Act before getting to my question. That act is intended to criminalize young people 14, 15 or 16 years old, according to the provinces.
I have been listening to my colleagues asking what we can do. In fact, you have been telling us from the outset: prevention, prevention, prevention.
There is no more money being invested in prevention. The NCPC has told us that it can't even apply for any more projects because there is no more money in the budget, until 2001-2012. What do we do if there is no more money being invested in prevention? They don't want to invest in prevention, but they want to hand out harsher sentences to young people who may have committed murders or serious crimes at the age of 14 or 15 or 16. So the real question to ask is this: what do we do after talking about prevention and not criminalizing young people? In fact, we find ourselves with a system that will do that, that will criminalize young people and won't invest a penny more in prevention.
Mr. Floyd Wiebe:
In our case we had one juvenile, the mastermind behind TJ's murder. He was held in the Manitoba Youth Centre for 32 months. Even though the murder happened prior to the Youth Criminal Justice Act--it came in on April 1, 2003--my son was murdered January 5, 2003, so he came under the YCJA instead of the YOA.
Not that I'm commenting about the YCJA so much, but just based on what Kelly said, this individual who masterminded my son's murder received absolutely zero intervention in his life from a psychiatrist, psychologist, nothing. I'm not supposed to know this, but I found out. We victims have an incredible way of finding things out we're not supposed to. I was so disturbed, even though I was enraged that this person—he was three weeks shy of his eighteenth birthday—had the capacity to convince three other people to murder for him because they did not even know my son. Even though, as Mr. Murphy said, I could be filled with rage at that, what I was more enraged with was this person was held in an institution for 32 months before he was acquitted and received absolutely no help. So what does that say to this peer? First of all he goes into a youth institution, he's held there for 32 months, gets absolutely no mental help. Do you think he needs mental help? He just had someone murdered.
It's hard for me to even go there, yet nothing happened. So what Kelly said is absolutely correct. This person needs to be dealt with; otherwise he'll kill again, because not only did he not get intervention for 32 months, he got off, which is totally another thing. Think of the power this young man may have in his system right now.
Mr. Bob Dechert (Mississauga—Erindale, CPC):
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for sharing your views with us today. I'm very impressed with what you had to say, and I thank you also for the good work you do through your organizations.
Mr. Wiebe, I want to express my condolences to you and your family. I'm sorry this tragedy happened in your family.
You said a number of things that struck me this morning. One was with respect to the different types of criminal organizations that are out there. I get it that there are street gangs that are organizations of young people who perhaps lack economic opportunity, who are looking for a place to belong, or have other social needs. Then there are more serious criminal organizations that prey upon them.
I think you mentioned something called a puppet club; you used that term. You said there was an individual there who, now that he's facing 12 years in jail, suddenly wants to change. What organization is he from? Where does he fit into the whole picture? How does he or the organization that he represents prey upon these other street gangs?
Mr. Floyd Wiebe:
That example was a Zig Zag Crew member. Actually he's a former Zig Zag Crew member. This individual was raised right next door to me; he lived there basically his whole life, so I know him very well. He did get involved in the Zig Zag Crew. In Winnipeg, you have to understand this, the Zig Zag Crew members.... I doubt any person on this panel.... None of those crew members are the ones these people help, because they got there for different reasons. As I said in my speech, he got there because of choice, because of the money, and all of that stuff.
He essentially is a criminal businessman.
Mr. Floyd Wiebe:
He's absolutely a criminal businessman. He will admit that to me every time I visit him. He knows what he's doing. He knew when he came out of jail that if he ever got caught with gun involvement again, he would get a minimum ten-year sentence. He knew that. If he was trafficking heroin, he was going to get a minimum two-year sentence. He still made that decision.
There is a huge difference between him and the people that this crew then goes down. It goes from Asian organized crime that has all the drugs, to the Hells Angels, to whoever has equality with them, to the Zigs, to the Mad Cowz, to all the B-siders. There's that pyramid schedule.
What do we need to do to prevent people like him from getting into business and preying on these other gangs?
Mr. Floyd Wiebe:
I don't know that the other panel members will agree, but I believe in laws that take people like the Zig Zags and above, those public clubs.... And, yes, I might disagree with the panel about jails. But I'm sorry; these people are calculated, organized people who don't come from the regular homes that all these people are talking about. I believe, personally—this is just me—that they need to be put away for a long time.
When I visit him in the remand centre--I'll visit him again, and I will still support him—I tell him that he is going down for this, and he agrees. He absolutely agrees.
If we send him, and others like him, a message that we're not going to tolerate their behaviour, can we stem the flow of people like that?
Mr. Floyd Wiebe:
I personally believe that you can.
Okay. Thank you very much for that.
So it is seven times more effective with respect to the individual, as opposed to the protection of society, as you understand it. Thank you.
Mr. Wiebe, I certainly share the feelings of the other members of the panel who have expressed condolences to you and your family, and I really appreciate your coming here to share your story, as painful as it is. From my perspective, victims of crime and families of victims are the people the criminal justice system ought to be protecting, and I was curious as to whether you or your family has ever used the services of the federal ombudsman for victims of crime.
Mr. Floyd Wiebe:
We are not doing so currently. I was vice-president of the Manitoba Organization for Victim Assistance for several years. It is a Manitoba group that helps victims of homicide go through the court system. In fact, I almost applied for the ombudsman job when it came up three years ago—
It's open again.
Mr. Floyd Wiebe:
Yes, I know, but I'd have to move to Ottawa. Move it here and I'll be okay.
I came this close, though, believe me. That position is incredible, and it is becoming more and more useful. My wife and I have not accessed it personally, but I know people who have.
You are familiar with some of its programs, I take it.
Mr. Floyd Wiebe:
Yes.
Obviously you support that initiative and counsel other families of victims to access its services when necessary.
Mr. Floyd Wiebe:
I do, very much so, and so do your parole service people. We just had parole services meet with us two weeks ago, and there were many victims in the room who didn't know about it. The Government of Canada is also promoting to victims that it is available, and it should absolutely be kept. It is a very important component.
Thank you for that.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you.
That brings us to the end of our time. We want to thank each one of you. We've gained a little different perspective from you, because you're representing the intervention and prevention side of the equation.
