Dodging Questions 101: A Crash Course by Vic Toews on Transparency

Question Period - 29 April 2010

* Download QP text
* View QP video (minutes 49:45 to 54:50)

Below is an example of our 'democracy' at work, where simple questions put to the minority Conservative Government of Canada are not answered. Instead of debate based on the merits of the issues, we get repeated episodes of obstruction and hollow rhetoric. Is this the brand of politics Canadians deserve?

When watching QP, one thing that has always amazed me is how mud gets tossed from all sides of the House of Commons for 40 minutes or so and then at the end of the session the Speaker points to domestic and foreign dignitaries in the audience who must be asking themselves "WTF is going on here?" Read the text below and you'll see why I'm frustrated and embarrassed about the level of discussion that is taking place amongst our representatives in our elected house.

-----

Mr. Mark Holland (Ajax - Pickering, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, for more than six months the government blocked the Parliamentary Budget Officer from getting basic information on the Conservatives' plans to build prison cities.

Information that should have been turned over in a day was buried, hidden. The office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer had to build statistical models and dedicate a third of the office for half a year to figure out costs the government was hiding.

Now under threat of a Parliamentary Budget Officer report days away, the government tosses out numbers, but only for one bill with no supporting facts.

Will the minister stop stonewalling and turn over all costs to the Parliamentary Budget Officer?

Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Public Safety, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, unlike the Liberals, our priority is public safety.

The Liberals have shown that they have a fundamentally different view on what it means to be tough on crime. They believe it is citizens who should be locked up in their own homes while dangerous criminals are out on the streets. That is not the position of our party. We stand with victims. We stand for the rights of Canadians. We are prepared to pay to send dangerous criminals to jail.

Mr. Mark Holland (Ajax-Pickering, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives believe in failed Republican policies. We believe in evidence.

The Conservatives cut 41% from the victims of crime initiative. They slashed, by more than half, spending on crime prevention. They fired the victims ombudsman who said that their plan was unbalanced and would not work. They are now trying to force Parliament to vote in the dark.

The minister says he knows the costs but will not tell. He refuses to co-operate with the Parliamentary Budget Officer. The Speaker has just ruled that denying such information is an attack on democracy.

Will the minister turn over all costs to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, yes or no? It is a simple question.

Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Public Safety, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, let us talk about evidence.

We know that the Liberal Party stole $40 million. The Liberals have come back with $1 million. They have still stolen $39 million. That is clear evidence. We know that. Where is the money?

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Speaker:

Order, order. Some members are suggesting that they continue their discussion outside. I agree. We are in question period now. The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway has the floor.

Mr. Don Davies (Vancouver Kingsway, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, earlier this week the public safety minister told Canadians that the cost of ending two-for-one sentencing credits and longer sentences would be $90 million. Now he admits the federal government's share will be $2 billion, with billions more downloaded to the provinces to deal with the influx of prisoners.

Can the minister explain how his own estimate of the bill's cost ballooned by 2,000% overnight? And, have the provinces been made aware of the crushing financial burden the Conservatives are imposing upon them?

Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Public Safety, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, what we do know is that members of the NDP do not care about the cost to victims. They never stand up for victims. They will stand up for Taliban soldiers. They will stand up for dangerous criminals. They will stand up for people who in fact come into this country illegally. But do they ever talk about Canadian victims who are victims of dangerous criminals. Never.

Mr. Don Davies (Vancouver Kingsway, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, the $2 billion price tag is for only one of the Conservatives' misguided bills. They have even more planned that will cost billions more.

Instead of spending billions to lock up more Canadians for longer, the government should make investments that will make communities safe, like increased funding for front-line mental health services, crime prevention and youth diversion programs which are proven to reduce the crime rate.

Why is the government planning to waste billions of dollars on punishment that does not help victims, but spends little on the practical measures that will actually make Canadians safer?

Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Public Safety, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, one of the biggest proponents of Bill C-25, ending two-for-one credit, was the NDP justice minister in Manitoba. I would suggest that the member listen to the NDP justice minister in Manitoba because at least that is one New Democrat who actually cares about victims, unlike the caucus over on the other side.

Prison Budget Showdown: Toews vs. Page, Provinces and Territories vs. the Feds

As reports surfaced yesterday concerning the costs of prison expansion associated with the passage of Bill C-25 (see 28 April 2010 post), it appears as though there will be at least two major battles that will emerge in the weeks to come.

A first prison budget showdown appears to be emerging between Public Safety Minister Vic Toews and Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page. Where the Parliamentary Budget Office's (PBO) forthcoming report has reportedly pegged the prison costs associated with the elimination of the the 2-for-1 sentencing credit that came into force in February 2010 between $7 billion to $10 billion over five years, Toews claims that his folks have pegged the cost at $2 billion over five years (read 28 April 2010 article by Janice Tibbetts).

Given the discrepancy, whose numbers will we trust when they are released? The budget figures compiled by an independent watchdog who reportedly consulted outside experts to review the study's methodology and findings or those of a Government who squandered a budgetary surplus, didn't see a recession coming, failed to initially acknowledge that we were even in the midst of a recession (or a 'technical' one - whatever that means) and hasn't offered Canadians a plan on how to excavate us out of our current structural budget crisis? Whose numbers will we trust? Those of the PBO, who will release his study's methodology and figures next week for the public to see and examine or those of the Conservatives who, based on past practice, will likely not even release their methodology and figures to the public for democratic debate?

A second prison budget showdown appears to be emerging between the provincial-territorial and federal governments over who should cover the prison costs associated with the minority Government of Canada's punishment agenda. This subject was briefly addressed in an interview which appeared yesterday on CBC's Power & Politics (view minutes 1:38:00 to 139:40), where host Evan Solomon asked Ontario Minister of Community Safety and Corrections Rick Bartolucci the following:

...the Parliamentary Budget Officer, Kevin Page, in the week ahead will come out with estimates about the costs of the Government's proposed get tough on crime changes. According to what were hearing, early releases, the cost will be billions of dollars in terms of prisons and correctional services, the brunt of which will fall on the shoulders of the provinces, frankly, people like you. What are you hearing from the Feds about the costs of these changes to the correctional service because of the tough on crime legislation that your province will have to pay for?

Bartolucci responded:

That question is a question that has been asked around the Federal, Territorial and Provincial table. It'll be one that will be continued to be asked around the table. We agree with the federal government with regards to legislation. It is important that we have the safest possible communities, but that does come with a price. And so what we're asking of the federal government, what we've asked for in the past at Federal-Provincial-Territorial meetings, and what we will continue to ask for is some assistance financially so that we can implement the legislation as effectively as possible, as expeditiously as possible, in order to ensure that across Canada we have the safest communities possible.

Beyond the obvious (i.e. that Bartolucci, like many other politicians, is linking the greater use of imprisonment to enhancements in public safety without evidence to substantiate this claim), we must look under the surface to examine the Federal-Provincial-Territorial (FPT) political jockeying that has been going on behind closed doors for sometime.

With a number of common concerns and challenges, the FPT ministers responsible for their respective justice and public safety portfolios agreed to launch a study to examine the impact of changes in the composition of their prison populations during their annual meeting in November 2007 (see 16 November 2007 event news release). As the group established the terms of reference for the cross-jurisdictional study, the federal government limited their involvement in the initiative to the provision of statistics from the Correctional Service of Canada.

As the federal government scaled-back their participation in the project, the provinces and territories urged the Government of Canada "to consider the results of the study prior to implementing any recommendations" of the 2007 CSC Review Panel that will "have cross-jurisdictional impacts" (see 5 September 2008 event news release). While the study, dubbed the Changing Face of Corrections Report, was completed and circulated to participants at the FPT meeting in October 2009 (see 20 October 2009 event news release), the document which was set to discuss how jurisdictions were addressing the remand crisis, possible options for the division of labour regarding 'correctional' services moving forward, as well as the development of mechanisms to share best practices has yet to be released to the public. The question is why?

Why hasn't the FPT group released this report which, according to a letter dated 28 June 2009 I received from an Ontario official (Adult Institutional Services, Ministry of Community Safety and Correctonal Services, Government of Ontario), sought, in part, to determine "how the provinces/territories and federal government can best collaborate to find synergies around program delivery and infrastructure planning" to the public? One reason could be that the provinces and territories have been waiting for a policy window to open (i.e. the release of the PBO report) that would provide credence to the initiatives proposed in their study which have yet to be shared with the Canadian taxpayers who paid for it in the so-called age of government transparency. My guess is that this too, like the fall-out from the soon to be released PBO report, will play-out in the media and behind the closed doors, where the 'political class' does it's work, in the coming weeks.

The Dollars-and-Cents of the Conservative Punishment Agenda: Parliamentary Budget Officer to Release Report on the Costs of Bill C-25 Next Week

According to a flurry of news stories (see 27 April 2010 articles in the Ottawa Citizen, CTV and CBC), the Parliamentary Budget Officer of Canada (PBO), Kevin Page, will be releasing a report on the fiscal costs of Bill C-25. Depending on the news outlet, the reported cost of the bill to provincial-territorial and federal prison authorities who will absorb the influx of new prisoners serving longer sentences ranges between $7 billion and $10 billion.

Bill C-25, which was passed in the last session of Parliament, eliminated the ability of juges to give individuals 2 days credit for every 1 day served while awaiting trial and sentencing when deemed appropriated because of poors conditions in prisons where they served time in remand. Now, only under exceptional circumstances can juges give individuals 1.5 days credit for every 1 day served in remand.

The impetus of this legislation came from the provinces and territories who believed that defendants were instructing their legal counsel to slow down the trial process so that they could spend more time in remand in order to receive a lesser sentence down the road as a result of the sentencing credit they could potentially obtain. Based on this logic, the minority Conservative Government of Canada tabled and passed the bill with the support of the Liberals following amendments.

However, this legislation is likely not to have the impact sought, as findings based on surveys and interviews with defendants as part of a study conducted by Michael Weinrath (University of Winnipeg) published in July 2009 in the Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice showed the following:

While the provision of two-for-one pre-sentence credit may have some influence, our data indicate that many accused are not content to sit in custody in the hopes of gaining some benefits at sentence and only desire a swift trial and a resolution to their charges (page 376).

This being the case, Weinrath argued that the concerns expressed by authorities over the 2-for-1 credit is beneficial to justice officials and politicians in the following way:

...it distracts attention from the problem of offering enough open court dates to process court cases expediently. Shifting "blame" to pre-trial cases and their lawyers obfuscates the responsibility of the state to offer a speedy trial to [the] accused" (pages 372-373).

Of the items from the PBO report that have been disclosed thus far, there are two major issues that arise for me. The first is the claim advanced by the Conservatives that the space already exists to absorb the influx of prisoners serving longer sentences.

While my research on on-going prison construction does show that additional capacity is being created within Canadian prisons, these new facilities and additions to existing institutions are being constructed for a variety of reasons related to a crisis in our prisons that existed before the federal Conservative punishment agenda began including: 1) to replace aging infrastruture; 2) to address persistent overcrowding; 3) to create space to attempt to cope with the number of prisoners suffering from drug addiction and mental illness; and 4) space requirements associated with changing programming objectives.

Although some of the new space created was intended to accomodate new prisoners serving longer sentences as a result of federal punishment legislation, the capacity challenges currently faced by prison systems in Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, British Columbia and Nunavut, as well as the rate of double-bunking in federal penitentiaries, a practice which goes against the Correctional Service of Canada's (CSC) own policy directives (see 18 March 2010 post and 19 March 2010 post), will require the additional prison construction reportedly forecasted by the PBO.

A second important issue to consider in regards to the forthcoming PBO study are reports from CTV that researchers from this office did not receive "full disclosure from the government" and from Kathryn May of the Ottawa Citizen that CSC refused to provide Bill C-25 related information regarding costs and population forecasts to the PBO because the "result of the bill is a cabinet secret". This unwillingness to provide the PBO with this information is another symptom of CSC's culture of secrecy, which is also evidenced by its recent grade of "F" from the Office of the Information Commissioner (see 14 April 2010 post).

The Government of Canada and CSC information blockade is perhaps one reason why the PBO reportedly focussed on the impact of Bill C-25 and not other bills that have been recently passed by Parliament. With this said, we'll have to stay tuned to hear what Kevin Page and others from his staff have to say about this issue.

One thing that can be stated conclusively is that if we continue down this path, the $7 billion to $10 billion reportedly discussed in the PBO report is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the total costs of the Conservative punishment agenda.

Looking Beyond our Pocketbooks: The Moral Imperative for Reducing our Reliance on Imprisonment

By Justin Piché

To be presented to the Rotary Club of Kemptville (Ontario)
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
7:15pm

[CHECK AGAINST DELIVERY]

Hi folks,
Thank you for inviting me again to speak to the Rotary Club of Kemptville. I always appreciate the opportunity to share my work with groups such as yours who contribute so much to building our communities.

The last time I spoke to your group in December 2008, we explored how the current penal system is ill-equipped to meet the needs of those most impacted by conflict and harm in our society: victims, 'offenders' and community members. When I asked you "what is justice?", you didn't respond "getting tough on crime" or other slogans we commonly hear coming out of the mouths of our politicians, both on the left and right.

For those impacted by 'crime', justice is not about a contest between lawyers, judges and juries determining innocence and guilt, and punishing those deemed culpable. You stated that justice is about having one's truth acknowledged, one's voice being heard, about individuals being accountable for their actions and what takes place in their communities, about meaningful compensation and safe reintegration for all involved, and about building neighbourhoods, not tearing them apart.

Introduction

I am here today to share with you some preliminary findings from my doctoral dissertation entitled (Un)mapping Prison Expansion in Canada. This study examines the scope of and factors shaping prison expansion across Canada at this time.

In the last few months, some of the figures concerning the economic costs of prison expansion have drawn the attention of the news media and federal politicians. Some have even argued that "It has become fashionable among the commentariat to say Canada doesn't need to spend more money on law enforcement and prison construction because crime rates are falling" (read Flanigan, 15 April 2010). Whether or not this is actually the case is a discussion we can save for another day. What I am concerned about is statements made by those, such as Tom Flanigan, who acknowledge that increasing our reliance on imprisonment "costs a lot of money. But so what if it costs more to keep a criminal in prison for a year than it does to maintain a soldier in the Canadian Forces or a student at university?"

In the minutes ahead, I will present data on some of the costs of our current approach to 'crime' and punishment. I will then explore the implications of increasing our reliance on imprisonment and encourage you to look beyond your pocketbooks to consider other reasons why we should encourage our federal politicians to abandon the so-called tough on crime agenda.

Origins of Canada's Prison Crisis

You're in your kitchen. You've plugged the sink so the water doesn't run down the drain. You turn on the tap. The sink begins to fill. Eventually, the water reaches the top of the sink and is about to spill-over onto your kitchen floor - a huge mess in the making. Clearly, it's in your interest to prevent this pending crisis in your home. Do you pull the plug to allow some of the water to run down the drain? Do you turn off the tap to cut off the water supply? Or, do you run to your local hardware store to buy a bigger sink?

Prior to the 2006 federal election, prison systems across Canada were in crisis. In our provincial-territorial prisons where we typically house those awaiting trial or who are serving sentences of two years minus a day, the vast majority of cells, often the size of our washrooms, were occupied with one, two, or sometimes even three or four prisoners.

In our federal prisons where we typically house those serving sentences of two years plus a day, the rate of double-bunking has been approximately between 6 and 11 percent in the last decade. This continues to be an operationally reality in our federal penitentiaries despite the existence of Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) Commissioner's Directive 550 which states that "Single occupancy accommodation is the most desirable and correctionally appropriate method of housing offenders" and the fact that Canada is a signatory to the United Nations' Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners which strongly discourages this practice.

It is also widely recognized by experts, those working in prisons and politicians that penal institutions have become dumping grounds for those suffering from drug addiction and mental illness, women who prostitute themselves on our streets in order to survive, as well as the poor who cannot afford bail prior to adjudication or adequate representation to avoid prosecution, being found guilty and sentenced to imprisonment. Many of the facilities where we house prisoners were and continue to be decrepit and dilapidated to a point that they are places unfit for animals, let alone human beings.

Faced with this situation, prison officials have argued that new prisons (or new sinks) are required not only for the reasons stated above, but also because they claim that current facilities are inconducive to meeting their institutional programming objectives. And while many jurisdictions were in the midst of planning to replace or retrofit some of their old prisons, our already over-burdened penal infrastructure was about to incur additional pressure.

In the wake of highly publicized shootings in the summer of 2005, a moral panic where disparate events were presented to us as being indicative of a larger trend ensued. It is in the wake of the so-called summer of the gun that 'crime' re-emerged as a central topic of discussion in politics during the 2006 federal election campaign. During this time, it became fashionable for federal politicians of all stripes to tout their 'tough on crime' credentials for electoral gain. To not do so would be tantamount to revealing oneself as being 'soft on crime', a label thought to be synonymous with death at the polls. As a result, many sentencing laws which restrict a prisoner's ability to be released into the community and / or proscribe longer prison sentences have been passed without any evidence that such measures will enhance safety in our communities.

With our prisons already full, we have embarked on a path of overflowing old prisons that officials intended to replace and to build new prisons to absorb the influx of new prisoners resulting from federal legislation. The path taken is not one to public safety but one that will lead to cuts in other social expenditures, higher taxes or both.

The Economic Costs of Prison Expansion

At the provincial-territorial level, there are currently 22 new prisons and 11 additions to existing facilities at various stages of completion being established.

Should these facilities all come online I have calculated that they will augment the capacity of provincial-territorial prisons by at least 5,958 beds. Based on 2007-2008 data compiled by the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, I have estimated that approximately another $315 million will need to be spent annually to cover the costs of these new beds for prisoners once they become occupied.

In addition to the annual structural deficit associated with the warehousing of prisoners, the figures I have compiled show that, to date, approximately $2.865 billion has been earmarked for the construction of these institutions.

In the last few years, the federal penitentiary system has also undergone an expansion. From 2005-2006, the last year the Liberals table a federal budget, to this fiscal year, the expenditures of CSC have ballooned from $1.597 billion to $2.46 billion, a 54 percent increase. In 2012-2013, CSC's budget is projected to be $3.128 billion, up 95.9 percent since the Conservatives entered office.

A significant portion of CSC's increasing budget is being allocated towards capital expenditures, which include facility construction cost. To date, the organization's capital expenditures have gone from $138.2 million in 2005-2006 to $329.4 million in 2010-2011, up 138.4 percent. In 2012-2013, capital expenditures are to rise to $466.9 million, up 237.8 percent since 2005-2006.

Unfortunately, all of my attempts to obtain records on specific federal prison construction projects under the Access to Information Act have been stonewalled. As a result, I have only been able to obtain a list of contingency plans outlined in a document obtained through Access to Information by a colleague titled "CSC Capacity to Handle Overcrowding". This document lists "Increased double bunking", increased use of Exchange of Service Agreements with their provincial-territorial partners, "Rental of trailers", "Conversion of units", "Construction of new units", "Use of specialized cells (e.g. using cells that are identified as part of CSC's physical capacity but for one reason or another are not included as rated capacity - e.g. closed beds, admin segregation, etc.), "Use of gyms as dorms", "Spring structure", "Voluntary [and] involuntary transfers", and other options being considered or implemented by CSC to deal with overcrowding.

CSC staffing levels have also risen from 14,663 full-time equivalent employees in 2005-2006 to 16,587 in 2010-2011, an increase of 13.1 percent. While the Government of Canada is planning to make cuts to dozens of federal agencies in the coming years (see Globe and Mail, 2010), it is projected that by 2012-2013 there will be 20,079 full-time staff working in the federal penitentiary system, a 41.2 percent increase since the arrival of this Conservative federal government.

But I'm an academic. Don't let me fool you with these figures and statistics. After all, they're based on numbers produced by and obtained from governments across the country.

A Price You're Willing to Pay?

The prison construction initiatives and rise in prison expenditure above have taken place in the context of an overall decline in police-reported 'crime' since 1991 (see Statistics Canada, 2008), as well as an overall decrease in the severity of police-reported between 1998 and 2008 (see Statistics Canada, 2009).

These statistics do have their flaws. For instance, they do not capture unreported 'crime'. According to figures compiled from the 2004 General Social Survey (GSS), 34 percent of 'criminal' incidents were reported to police, a 3 percent decrease from 1999 (see Statistics Canada, 2005). Some of the reasons cited were:

- "the victim dealt with the violent incident in another way" (66 percent);
- "the victim felt that the incident was not important enough" (53 percent);
- "they didn't want the police to get involved" (42 percent);
- "they felt it was a personal matter" (39 percent);
- "they didn't think the police could do anything about it" (29 percent);
- "the victim felt that the police wouldn't help" (13 percent); and
- "the victim did not report because they feared retaliation by the offender" (11 percent).

Another critique of using the decline of police-reported 'crime' rate statistics to argue against prison expansion has been advanced by Tom Flanigan, former political advisor of Preston Manning and Stephen Harper, who rightly observes that, despite their drop in recent decades, 'crime' rates remain higher than in 1962 when Statistics Canada began to compile these figures (read here).

In lieu of these two observations, the members of the Conservative Government and their allies argue that we need more prisons, which they claim will reduce 'crime'. The 'logic' being that by incapacitating 'offenders' they will at least not pose a threat to our communities while imprisoned. However, in taking this stance they fail to provide any evidence to substantiate their position. Why? Because they can't find any.

Consider this:
In 2000, Canada incarcerated 116 per 100,000 residents in comparison to the United States who imprisoned 709 per 100,000 residents (see Christie, 2000). If the Conservative Government's theory about incapacitation was correct, Canada, by virtue of incarcerating less prisoners per capita, would be less safe than the United States, a country which incarcerates more prisoners per capita than anywhere else in the world. However, 2000 figures show that Canada had significantly lower rates of violent 'crimes' such as homicide (rate: 1.8 CND vs. 5.5 U.S.), aggravated assault (rate: 143 CND vs. 324 U.S.) and robbery (rate: 88 CND vs. 145 U.S.) than in the United States (see Statistics Canada, 2001). And while we had slightly higher rates of break and enters (rate: 954 CDN vs. 728 U.S.), as well as motor vehicle theft (rate: 521 CDN vs. 414 U.S.), these are not the types of 'crimes' most consider to pose a severe danger to society.

Beyond this comparison, the most important argument to be made against the notion that incapacitation of individuals enhances public safety is made by Howard Sapers, the Correctional Investigator of Canada. During his 25 May 2009 testimony before the Parliamentary Committee on Justice and Human Rights, Sapers noted the following:

My Office is concerned with the impact that a rapid influx of new admissions to federal custody will have on an already burdened correctional system. In my 2007/08 Annual Report, I noted that prison overcrowding has negative impacts on the system's ability to provide humane, safe and secure custody. It is well documented that overcrowding in prison can lead to increased levels of tensions and violence, and can jeopardize the safety of staff, inmates and visitors.

As witnessed in the early 1990s when correctional populations dramatically increased, timely and comprehensive access to offender programs, treatment and meaningful employment opportunities measurably diminished resulting in delays of safe reintegration into the community further exacerbating both overcrowding and cost pressures. It bears noting that the pervasive effects of prison overcrowding reach far beyond the provision of a comfortable living environment for federal inmates; stretching the system beyond its capacity to move offenders through their correctional plans in a timely fashion has negative impacts on the protection of society itself as offenders are incarcerated for a greater proportion of their sentence only to be released in the community ill prepared and then supervised for shorter periods of time.

As it stands now, offenders have to contend with long waiting lists for programs; canceled programs because of insufficient funding or lack of trained facilitators; delayed conditional release because of this lack of capacity to provide timely programs means offenders cannot complete their correctional plans; and more time served behind walls without correctional benefit. This situation is becoming critical as more and more offenders are released later in their sentences, too often having not received the necessary programs and treatment to increase their chance of success in the community.

What Sapers' warning above tells us is that by passing legislation that will precipitate an increase in the federal prison population we will in effect be creating a situation where prisoners will have less access to programs and resources, which in the long-term will likely contribute to recidivism and decrease safety in our communities. Given that the vast majority of the incarcerated will one day return among us and the fact that our prisons are overcrowded as it is, the argument that incapacitating additional individuals for longer periods of time will enhance public safety is short-sighted and dishonest.

In a context of budgetary deficits and fiscal austerity, this approach which does little to address 'crime' in our communities is extremely costly. Beyond the figures I have presented to you today, consider how your tax dollars are being invested in individuals. According to 2007-2008 data compiled by the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, it costs an average of $56,100.50 to house a provincial-territorial prisoner and $108,974.40 per year to house a federal prisoner.

Knowing what we do about the failures of imprisonment, is it reasonable to say "But so what if it costs more to keep a criminal in prison for a year than it does to maintain a soldier in the Canadian Forces or a student at university?".

So what if it costs $1,825 to $9,125 to supervise a prisoner of the state in the community per year with better results?

So what if for every $1 spent on preventing conflict and harm in our communities we save $7 we would need to spend on incarceration after a 'crime' has taken place (see Waller, 2006)?

So what if out of the $70 billion in costs resulting for 'crime' in Canada in 2003, $47 billion (or 67 percent) were incurred by victims themselves while our approach to justice focusses on the adjudication of innocence or guilt and the punishment of the culpable in a way that largely excludes their voices (see slide 56 - Justice Canada, 2005)?

So what if our federal government diverts piles of money into a failed approach to addressing complex conflicts and harms in our communities while providing crumbs to victims (see 6 April 2010 post 1)?

So what if the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime is on record as saying that the Government of Canada should take the money it's spending on expanding our prisons towards helping victims of 'crime' (see 6 April 2010 post 2)?

So what if imprisonment causes economic and emotional hardship to families who lose not only a son or daughter, brother or sister, mother or father, but also in most cases a wage earner who contributes to their household when an 'offender' is sent to prison (see Hannem, 2009)?

Indeed, so what?

A Penal Minimalist Approach

For me, the evidence of the failure of imprisonment and the collateral consequences is too much to ignore. It is this evidence that has led me to change the perspective I had on penal policy when I enrolled in Criminology at the University in Ottawa some ten years ago in what I thought would lead me to become a prosecution lawyer who would "put the bad guys behind bars".

Rather than contributing to the Canadian prison crisis by increasing our reliance on imprisonment, I believe it is time to implement policies that position imprisonment as a mechanism of last resort.

This would involve putting into place a moratorium on prison construction, prohibiting double-bunking, not passing legislation that leads to the expansion of our prison population and examining existing laws to see where we can safely scale-back sentence lengths. This assessment of the Criminal Code of Canada could also examine the possibility of decriminalizing many offenses related to the use and trafficking of illicit drugs, as well as prostitution which have proven to be dealt with more effectively by being regulated within the health sector using a harm reduction approach.

The funds saved from reducing our reliance on criminalization and incarceration could be reinvested in addressing the root causes of 'crime' such as inadequate education, a lack of gainful employment, the availability of affordable housing and social services, and the dearth of bonds between members of our communities.

The path we choose is not simply a question of public safety. It is a reflection of our morals. Russian philosopher Fyodor Dostoevsky (1860) once argued that "the standard of a nation's civilization can be judged by opening the doors of its prisons". Former British Prime-Minister Winston Churchill (1910), once remarked that "the mood and temper of the public in regard to the treatment of crime and criminals is one of the most unfailing tests of the civilization of any country".

If Doestoevsky or Churchill were to take a walk into our penal institutions to examine their conditions or turn-on the television today to hear the tenor of the debate on penal policy, one would not be foolish to assume that they would give our nation a failing grade for its current levels of civility.

And so what?

Imprisonment will never impact you, your family or friends directly.

The truth of the matter is that if we continue to march down the road of mass imprisonment, at some point, you will be directly impacted. In the United States, where we heard much of the same rhetoric from politicians who passed one 'law and order' piece of legislation after another while dismissing their critiques as being 'soft on crime', they went from approximately 200 prisoners per 100,000 residents in the early 1980s to 754 prisoners per 100,000 residents in 2008. That same year, 1 in 131 Americans found themselves in jail or prison (see Sentencing Project, 2010).

If we tolerate this, not only will your children have to pay for it out of their pockets, they will be next (Manic Street Preachers, 1998).

How to Talk Out of Both Sides of Your Mouth: Ignatieff Critiques and Supports Prison Expansion in the Same Breath

In recent weeks, members of the opposition (including the Liberal Party) have critiqued the Conservative Government's penal policies on the grounds that they will be ineffective at enhancing safety in our communities and will cost Canadians an arm-and-a-leg in the process.

In his speech today to the Canadian Police Association (read here), Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff provided his so-called 'alternative' approach to addressing 'crime'.

Ignatieff began his talk by thanking the police for all their hard work that helps to prevent 'crime' and signalled that a Liberal Government would provide police forces with additional resources to this end such as supporting the hiring of mental health officers and drug treatment officers.

Following this, Ignatieff noted that the Conservatives believe that the only solution to address 'crime' is to put more people in prison and to spend millions of dollars on building new penal institutions. He stated that Canadians know that this approach will not work and then pointed to the example of the United States where "They have almost two-and-a-half million Americans behind bars". He added that "If they [prisoners] were all in one place, that would make Prison City, USA the fourth largest city in America". Ignatieff continued his attack on the Conservative prison expansion agenda noting that "California is about to spend more on its prisons than its public universities" and that according to "every indicator, especially violent crime... the American crime rate is much, much higher than ours".

So what does his critique translate into?

Perhaps affraid to be labelled 'soft on crime', Ignatieff too, like many others in the 'political class', stated (despite the evidence) that his "party has supported tougher sentences - in government and in opposition". This statement is in-keeping with the view that "longer sentences and stricter sentencing", are "part of the solution". It also reflects a willingness amongst the 'political class' to sacrifice the facts and human lives (to greater or lesser degrees) for the purposes of electoral gain.

The question is, how does one critique prison expansion and then supports longer sentences in the same breath? Apparently, Ignatieff is suffering cognitive dissonance by failing to connect the fact that supporting longer sentences will lead to prison expansion. While Ignatieff went on to explain how he wanted to address the causes of 'crime', particularly those committed by youth by providing them with education, discipline and positive opportunities in the future, he then stated that young Canadians need to know that if they break the law they will be punished.

After uttering these words, Ignatieff claimed that "There's a clear difference between our approach and the Conservatives'". However, based on what the Liberal Leader has said today I fail to see what that difference is. Is it that Conservatives believe that a greater use of imprisonment prevents 'crime', while the Liberals believe that a greater use of imprisonment and prevention efforts prevents 'crime'?

In my book this is not so much a difference in policy direction, but simply more of the same couched in various shades of populist language. What Ignatieff, an 'intellectual', needs to answer is why he has adopted an approach where imprisonment is said to be a necessary pillar to addressing conflict and harm in our communities despite the evidence, the economic costs and the availability of more effective alternatives.

Leave It to Beaver: Anecdotes and Sensationalism as Basis for Penal Policy

In the shadow of the so-called summer of the gun in 2005, it became fashionable for federal politicians of all stripes to tout their 'tough on crime' credentials for electoral gain. Since that time, empirical evidence regarding the ineffectiveness and collateral consequences of imprisonment has often been ignored by our policy makers. As a result, harsher sentencing laws have been passed with little consideration of their economic costs which are now just becoming part of the public debate.

In an article published in Thursday's Globe and Mail (read here), Tom Flanagan scoffed at those who ask whether it is responsible or necessary to continue a legislative push which is leading to increases in prison budgets and the construction of new penal institutions across Canada in a context of declining 'crime' rates and a fiscal crisis. But should such figures be ignored?

Consider this:

From 2005-2006, the last year the Liberals tabled a federal budget, to this fiscal year, the expenditures of the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) have ballooned from $1.597 billion to $2.46 billion, a 54 percent increase. In 2012-2013, CSC's budget is projected to be $3.128 billion, up 95.9 percent since the Conservatives entered office.

A significant portion of CSC's increasing budget is being allocated towards capital expenditures, which include facility construction costs. To date, the organization's capital expenditures have gone from $138.2 million in 2005-2006 to $329.4 million in 2010-2011, up 138.4 percent. In 2012-2013, capital expenditures are to rise to $466.9 million, up 237.8 percent since 2005-2006.

During this period, CSC staffing levels are set to rise from 14,663 full-time equivalent employees in 2005-2006 to 16,587 in 2010-2011, an increase of 13.1 percent. By 2012-2013, it is projected that there will be 20,709 full-time staff working in the federal penitentiary system, a 41.2 percent increase since the arrival of this Conservative federal government.

The impacts of federal legislation have also been felt in Canadian provinces and territories, where there are currently 22 new prisons and 11 additions to existing facilities being established, in part, to absorb the influx of additional prisoners who will be serving longer sentences.

Should these facilities all come online I have calculated that they will augment the capacity of provincial-territorial prisons by at least 5,958 beds. Based on 2007-2008 data compiled by the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, I have estimated that approximately another $315 million will need to be spent annually to cover the costs of these new beds for prisoners once they become occupied.

In addition to the annual structural deficit associated with the warehousing of prisoners, the figures I have compiled show that, to date, approximately $2.865 billion has been earmarked for the construction of these institutions.

But I'm an academic. Don't let me fool you with these figures and statistics. After all, they're based on numbers produced by and obtained from governments across the country.

Tom Flanagan says that "It has become fashionable among the commentariat to say Canada doesn't need to spend more money on law enforcement and prison construction because crime rates are falling". After years of penal policy discussions driven by anecdotes and sensational cases, is it not time that commentary on this issue be driven by actual evidence?

As a fellow academic, I'm surprised that Flanagan says "no", choosing instead to reminisce about the relative comfort and safety that he was apparently accustomed to during his childhood - images which evoke scenes from Leave It to Beaver. But then again what he dismisses as fashionable, I call factual.

Now You [Don't] Know and Knowing is Half the Battle

Although simple, the catch-phrase above broadcasted at the end of every episode of G.I. Joe I watched as a young boy captures the essential ingredient one needs to make sound decisions, including those made by our political representatives and public servants in a 'democratic' society: access to timely and accurate information. Access to such information is also central to scholarly endeavours. However, this is not a given for researchers, particularly if they are interested in studying the activities of government.

Since the release of A Roadmap to Strengthening Public Safety: A Report of the Correctional Service of Canada Review Panel, I have been attempting to obtain records concerning the development of this report, paid for by the tax dollar of Canadians (see 29 September 2009 post). I have also been attempting to gather documents concerning the implementation of the panels recommendations, with a focus on "physical infrastructure" initiatives.

In one January 2009 request filed under the Access to Information Act submitted to the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC), I sought the following records:

"I am requesting copies of all documents and records pertaining to physical infrastructure (specifically, proposed institution construction and retrofitting) obtained or produced by the Correctional Service of Canada Review Panel, data range April 2007 - October 2007.

Additionally I would like to know how records related to the Correctional Service of Canada Review Panel are filed within CSC's program records structure. As a temporary entity, the Review Panel no longer has an office. I would like to know if the Review Panel documents and records have been filed under the "Inquiries, Commissions, or Committees Addressing Correctional Issues" program records area CSC PAS 50".

After waiting nearly a year for the request to be processed, on 6 November 2009 I received a letter where I was informed that the documents I requested were "exempted in their entirety in accordance with sections 16(1)(d), 18(b)(d), and 21(1)(a)(b)(c)(d) of the Access to Information Act" (see information exemption clauses below).

16(1) The head of a government institution may refuse to disclose any record requested under this Act that contains
(d) information the disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to be injurious to the security of penal institutions.

18. The head of a government institution may refuse to disclose any record requested under this Act that contains
(a) trade secrets of financial, commercial, scientific or technical information that belongs to the Government of Canada or a government institution and has substantial value or is reasonable likely to have substantial value;
(b) information the disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to prejudice the competitive position of a government institution;
...
(d) information the disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to be materially injurious to the financial interests of the Government of Canada or the ability of the Government of Canada to manage the economy of Canada or could reasonably be expected to result in an undue benefit to any person, including, without restricting the generality of the foregoing, any such information relating to
(i) the currency, coinage or legal tender of Canada,
(ii) a contemplated change in the rate of bank interest or in government borrowing,
(iii) a contemplated change in tariff rates, taxes, duties or any other revenue source,
(iv) a contemplated change in the conditions of operation of financial institutions,
(v) a contemplated sale or purchase of securities or of foreign or Canadian currency, or
(vi) a contemplated sale or acquisition of land or property."

21(1) The head of a government institution may refuse to disclose any record requested under this Act that contains
(a) advice or recommendations developed by or for a government institution or a minister of the Crown,
(b) an account of consultations or deliberations involving officers or employees of a government institution, a minister of the Crown or the staff of a minister of the Crown,
(c) positions or plans developed for the purpose of negotiations carried on or to be carried on by or on behalf of the Government of Canada and considerations relating thereto, or
(d) plans relation to the management of personnel or the administration of a government institution that have not yet been put into operation.

While I had expected that the documents I requested in relation to physical infrastructure would result in a deemed refusal, I was extremely surprised that CSC did not disclose how the records related to the Review Panel are stored within CSC's program records structure. Would the disclosure of such information be considered to be injurious to the security of penal institutions (see 16(1)(d))? Would the disclosure of such information be expected to prejudice the competitive position of or would be materially injurious to CSC (see 18(b)(d))? Would the disclosure of such information include advice or recommendations developed by CSC or ministers, consultations and deliberations, positions or plans, or details regarding the management of personnel or the administration of a government institution that has not yet been put into operation (see 21(1)(a)(b)(c)(d)? In response to all these questions I would have to answer a resounding "no".

While I remain puzzled by the decision described above, an explanation of CSC's unwillingness to disclose such information may be found in a footnote on page 8 of a critique of the 2007 CSC Review Panel report by Michael Jackson and Graham Stewart entitled A Flawed Compass: A Human Rights Analysis of the Roadmap to Strengthening Public Safety. According to Jackson and Stewart, not only was Rob Sampson the Chair of the Review Panel, he also had a role in its implementation:

"Following the release of the Roadmap and the Government's endorsement of its recommendations Mr. Sampson was appointed by the Minister of Public Safety [Stockwell Day] as one of two "external advisors" to assist CSC in completing its Strategic Review. Not surprisingly Mr. Sampson, having chaired the Roadmap Panel, had little difficulty in July 2008, in his role as external advisor, to "attest to the probity" of CSC's Strategic Review based on the key recommendations he had authored and in concluding that the strategic review was "extremely well planned, well led and well executed"."

While the disclosure of the records I sought would not result in the provision of documents which could substantiate this claim by Jackson and Stewart, knowing where the records are housed would provide me with the ability to target my ATI requests in such a way that it could potentially turn-up these records should they exist. Unfortunately, this is not the case as I do not have the right to know.

It should be noted that my odyssey with CSC is not limited to the one case described above. I have submitted other ATI requests which have been processed by CSC since January 2009 (here I'm referring to requests A-2008-00338 / 00342, A-2008-00340, A-2008-00341, A-2009-00049, A-2009-00143, A-2009-00299 and A-2009-00300). In one way or another, I have been stonewalled on every single one of these requests.

Given this experience, I wasn't surprised to see that the organization received a grade of "F" in the report "Out of Time" - 2008-2009 Report Cards: Systemic Issues Affecting Access to Information in Canada (read slide 101 of the report), released by the Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC) of Canada yesterday. Notable reasons for giving CSC an "F" that I have personally experienced, at one point or another, include:

- "The deemed refusal rate was 47 percent".
- "The average time to complete a request was 110 days".
- "Almost 50 percent of requests were completed late; 22 percent of these were completed more than 90 days after their original date".
- "CSC submitted the required notices of extensions longer than 30 days to the Office of the Information Commissioner 45 percent of the time".

While CSC appears to have taken steps to improve their compliance with the Access to Information Act such as allocating more resources and hiring more staff for these purposes, if my experiences during the 2009-2010 fiscal year are of any indication, the organization has a long way to go before it meets this target.

Following a conference presentation at the 2009 Annual Meetings of the American Society of Criminology in Philadelphia by [public servant's name redacted], then at an American university and now a Director in CSC, entitled "Prison Population Growth: An Examination of Canadian Trends 1970 to 2009", I decided to file the following ATI request with CSC (file number A-2009-00300) on 9 November 2009:

"I am requesting all records produced and / or held by the office of the Commissioner, the Research Branch and the Facilities Branch of the Correctional Service of Canada related to research and information collection, as well as analysis being used to develop a plan for federal prison construction needs to be submitted to the Minister of Public Safety in 2010. This would include:
- A list of all research and information collection, as well as analysis that has taken place for the purposes of this plan;
- E-mail correspondence pertaining to this plan;
- Meeting minutes, outlines and PowerPoint decks concerning research related to the plan;
- Interim reports and deliverables emerging from CSC funded internal and external research related to the development of this plan;
- Media lines related to the research findings pertaining to this plan;
- Reports Memorandums or summaries prepared for the Commissioner regarding this research;
Time frame: January - November 2009".

I also took the opportunity to file another ATI request with CSC (file number A-2009-00299):

"The Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) is currently evaluating federal imprisonment construction needs. This involves research and the collection of information, as well as analysis regarding offender population forecasts and other measures approved by the Minister of Public Safety and EXCOM.

I am requesting all criteria being used for this broad assessment, as well as reports on Transformation priorities held by [public servant's name redacted], [public servant's name redacted], Don Head and members of EXCOM.

Time frame: January 2008 - November 2009".

In response to these requests, I had a conversation with a Senior Analyst from CSC's Access to Information and Privacy Division who then sent me the following e-mail on 2 December 2009:

As discussed by phone, this is to advise you that the majority of documents you have requested are either going to be submitted to Cabinet and / or have been sent to Cabinet. Our preliminary assessment has therefore determined that the documents will likely be exempted or excluded in their entirety pursuant to the Act. Furthermore, since Cabinet Confidences need to be sent to the Privy Council office for consultation, an extension of [a] few months will be required if you decide to proceed with your requests.

As an alternative, we can provide you with other documents that have recently been released...

While I appreciated the offer to obtain other documents as an alternative, I decided to pursue the requests as I felt that the records requested, if disclosed, could inform my research as well as public debates on the reasonableness of prison expansion in this country in a context of declining 'crime' rates and a fiscal crisis. Unfortunately, the premonitions of the Senior Analyst were correct. Not only was I advised on 11 December 2009 that "an extension of up to 150 days is required to process your request beyond the 30-day statutory limit as consultations with other government departments are necessary", on 19 March 2010 the records I had requested were "exempted in their entirety in accordance with sections of 18(a)(b)(d) and 21(1)(a)(b)(c)(d) of the Access to Information Act" (see exemption clauses detailed above).

Again disappointed by CSC's decision to withhold information, their decision to not provide documents on research, information collection and analysis that was used to develop a plan for federal prison construction to be submitted to the Minister of Public Safety in 2010 does seem to contradict the 18 March 2010 statements made by Vic Toews made on CBC's Power & Politics (view here). In his interview with Evan Solomon, Minister Toews claimed that he has not had plans to construct new federal penitentiaries presented to him and that his predecessors - Stockwell Day and Peter Van Loan - did not have plans to build new CSC institutions. If this is the case, is it possible that the contents of the documents I requested that were "either going to be submitted to Cabinet and / or have been sent to Cabinet" as of 2 December 2009 may contain plans the Minister maintains he has not seen?

For now, this question does not yet have an answer as CSC's Access to Information and Privacy Division determined that I did not have a right to know, and knowing is proving to be quite the battle.

Put the Money Spent on Prisons Towards Helping Victims: Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime

Today on CBC's Power & Politics (view minutes 16:50 to 30:50), host Evan Solomon continued his discussion on the costs of the Conservative incarceration agenda by asking "has the government really lived up to its promise to strengthen victims' rights, to stand up for victims of crimes?"

To address this issue, Solomon invited Steve Sullivan, the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime (read bio), to share his thoughts on the rising federal prison budget and the dearth in federal funding for 'crime' victims.

In response to the multi-billion dollar gap between federal prison and victims' expenditure, as well as the 41% cut to the Grants for the Victims of Crime Initiative and the 34% decrease in the Contributions to the Victims of Crime Initiative (see previous 6 April 2010 post), the Ombudsman noted that those cuts would impact research conducted and services offered by "totally underfunded" community-based victims' organizations.

Contrasting these developments to the massive budget increase for the Correctional Service of Canada, Solomon asked Sullivan the following question: "Now I know this is an austerity budget, but we've seen statistics saying that there's more money to be spent on putting people in prison, but it looks like, even though there is a slight increase, key programs around victims are being slashed. What does that tell you?"

Sullivan responded as follows: "When you're in government it's about making decisions and you have to make choices. So if you spend money on this area that means you can't spend it anywhere else. In this case, we're spending millions of more dollars on building prisons and that's a fairly popular position... the public seems to support that. But it also means we're not spending money elsewhere. We can't spend that money in two places, and victims of crime, I got to tell you, the stuff we hear from victims of crime on a daily basis - the problems they have meeting their mortgages, needing counseling, not being able to assist their children who are sexually abused. Building more prisons aren't going to address those problems. And we could put a child treatment centre in every major city in this country. We could build shelters for kids who are selling themselves on the street to come off the streets and try to live a different kind of life. The rates of Aboriginal victimization are so high... by spending so much money on prisons we're not spending money on those key needs for victims."

Later in the interview, Sullivan stated that the current legislative push is insufficient noting that "the needs of victims of crime are very complex. They're not easy solutions. It's not about a tag line about building more prisons or getting tougher on criminals. Their needs are complex and they're very in-depth and they're long-term. I guess what I would be telling the government is, if you have a pot of money and you have a choice to build more prisons or help more victims, to help more victims".

Solomon then asked "So as the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime, that's your message to the Minister... put more money into helping victims?" Sullivan's answer: "One of my last recommendations to the government will be to take the money they're spending on prisons to helping victims". "Away from prisons towards victims", Evan remarked as Sullivan nodded.

The discussion then turned to MP's, including Conservative Ed Fast, New Democrat Don Davies and Liberal Mark Holland. Amazingly, one of the first words out of Fast's mouth after seeing a table highlighting the $2.46 billion CSC budget for 2010-2011 was that the Governement is pursuing a "balance" between prisons which are said to keep the public safe from future victimization versus resources to ensure that the needs of victims are met. He then cited the $6.6 million increase over two years for the federal victims of 'crime' budget as evidence of this "balance".

In response, Holland argued that not only are victims under-served by the Conservative agenda but that expanding prisons will undermine safety in our communities in the long-run. He proposed, instead, that front-line prevention efforts that would stop "victims from happening in the first place" need to be implemented. Davies then added that "we need to beef up our funding on crime prevention. We need to also beef up our funding for victims' groups and also start attacking the causes of crime instead of putting so much money into the after-effects, which is building prisons".

After this exchange, the discussion shifted to the validity of Statistics Canada figures on the decline in volume and severity of 'crime'. In support of his colleague Shelly Glover's comments pertaining to the invisible figure of unreported 'crime' (see 1 April 2010 post), Fast stated: "First of all, I make no apologies for our position as a government that we're going to protect Canadians in their communities, on our streets - and Ms. Glover is correct. The crime rates that are reported by Statistics Canada are manipulated by those who want to make this a politically partisan issue. In fact, if you look at the statistics over the last five to ten years, violent crimes, the ones' that concern my community of Abbotsford, have actually gone up significantly and I would invite Mr. Holland, I would invite Mr. Davies, to speak to our police chief. Last year, Abbotsford was named the 'murder capital of Canada'. We know the kind of crime rates we have in our community. Speak to the people of the Fraser Valley and Vancouver. It's important that we address the issue of the protection of society as well as making sure there is enough support for the victims who have been victimized by predators in our communities."

The on-going Conservative attack on Statistics Canada figures and their so-called manipulation prompted Davies to call the use of invisible and unverifiable statistics by Fast and his colleagues a "complete absurdity" because they set up a situation where "if the crime rates rise, they want to put more money into the crime agenda, and if they don't, they want to put more money in the crime agenda because they think that it must be rising anyway, we just can't see it and that's just ludicrous". Holland joined in by noting that when he asked the Minister where he was getting his statistics from, Toews responded the "Vancouver Board of Trade" - hardly a reliable source for 'crime' statistics.

There are many things we can take from the discussion on Power & Politics today which were captured in some of the headlines accompanying the segment on the little federal resources provided to victims versus the amount of funds invested in our failing prisons including "Victimized Again: Victims' groups underfunded", "Victims Left Behind?", "Tough on Crime, Soft on Support" and "Punishment VS Support". As the casualties of the Conservative tough of truth campaign continue to pile up, it is perhaps the moment to, in the words of Against Me, "Stop! Take some time to think and figure out what's important to you".

What the Conservative 'Commitment' to Victims in Canada Looks Like

...those with the biggest vested interest in maintaining and expanding the prison industrial complex, police, prosecutors and politicians, eagerly use "victims' rights" groups as their stalking horses to expand repressive state police power in a manner that would seem crassly self interested if they did so directly.

- Paul Wright, 1998.

Since the Conservative Party of Canada took office in 2006, they have been able to set the terms of the debate concerning penal policy. Touting themselves as "tough on crime", they have projected the image that the opponents of their legislative agenda in the realm of politics and academia have been "soft on crime" for years (see thestar.com - 23 September 2009)

While the minority Government of Canada's approach to 'crime' and punishment has been critiqued in the mainstream media on occasion, recent discussions regarding the fiscal costs of their growing appetite for incarceration have put the Conservatives on the ropes. With little to hang their hats on, as their approach is not fiscally conservative (see 31 March 2010 post) or rooted in evidence (see Macleans' Magazine - 27 March 2009), Harper and the gang have declared themselves champions of 'crime' victims in a last ditch effort to preserve their credibility on this issue. However, a quick glance at the 2010 Federal Budget estimates suggests that victims are not first-and-foremost in their minds.

In 2009-2010, the federal government allocated $13 million in victim-related funding. While there appears to have been an additional $3.3 million a year "to enhance the support for victims of crime, including providing facilitated access to EI sickness benefits for eligible workers who have lost a family member as a result of crime" (see slide 115, Budget 2010), they have made cuts to some portions of the victims portfolio (see below).

Grants for the Victims of Crime Initiative
* see slide 339, Budget 2010 estimates.

2009-2010: $850,000
2010-2011: $500,000 (down 41.2%)

Contributions to the Victims of Crime Initiative
* see slide 340, Budget 2010 estimates.

2009-2010: $7,958,000
2010-2011: $5,250,000 (down 34%)

Add these figures to the projected federal "Crime Prevention" budget of $64,770,000 for this upcoming fiscal year (up $335,000 from 2009-2010), the $500,000 earmarked for the International Crime Prevention Centre as well as the $1,000,000 RCMP Grant to Promote Law Enforcement through Crime Prevention, Training and Public Relations, and contrast them to the budget for the Correctional Service of Canada which is now projected to be $2,640,200,000 (up $193 million from 2009-2010), and it becomes clear that the Conservatives are more interested in punishing those with whom the law is in conflict than they are in preventing victimization in the first place and meeting the needs of those impacted by conflict and harm in our communities.

Like police officers who oppose the abolition of the gun-registry (see 1 April 2010 post), victims of 'crime' are only called upon when their message supports the Conservative Party's addiction to incarceration and retribution.

Ruth Morris, a 2001 recipient of the Order of Canada, noted that a lifetime working with the criminalized and the victimized led her to conclude that the penal system (a.k.a. the criminal justice system) is ill-equipped to meet the needs of those impacted by conflict in our communities. In particular, she noted that the current system does not afford victims the opportunity to find answers to their questions and reassurances that their safety will be protected in the future - things that only their perpetrators can provide. Morris also rebuked the penal system for largely reducing the role of victims to that of state witnesses in so-called justice proceedings. She noted that compensation and apologies are also not common features of the system, because it is not designed for these purposes.

For some advocates who have identified the very same deficiencies in the penal process, the answer has been to take aim at the rights of criminalized populations in an attempt to bolster the standing of victims. For instance, one recent proposal by the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime "recommends that the CCRA be amended to authorize the CSC to deduct reasonable amounts from an offender's earnings to satisfy any outstanding restitution or victim fine surcharge orders" (see March 30, 2010 FOVC proposals). Given the low wages paid to prisoners for their labour, not only would the implementation of this recommendation not provide substantial funds to victims, it would also deprive families from what little money prisoners contribute to their households from behind bars. Furthermore, these funds that could be used to help prisoners reintegrate into society upon their release would be depleted in a manner that may compel some to turn to 'crime' in order to survive on the outside, leading to more victimization.

While our politicians find themselves debating over sensational, yet extremely unrepresentative, cases dealt within our penal system, perhaps it is time that Canadians start focusing their attention on the big picture. The status quo for victims is not acceptable, but the answer is not to retrench the rights of prisoners and rely more heavily on incarceration. If we are serious about public safety and meeting the needs of all victims (including prisoners) we need to have a serious and evidence-based discussion about the harms caused by the penal process itself and devise alternative approaches that will meet the needs of all stakeholders.

What Penal Policy Looks Like When the 'Facts' Don't Matter

Yesterday, I presented Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) budget figures that I compiled on CBC's Power & Politics with Evan Solomon (see 31 March 2010 broadcast - minutes 24:25-35:15). After walking viewers through the Government of Canada's own budget figures for the organization, which is being primarily driven by cost increases in the custody and capital expenditure portions of the portfolio, Evan turned the floor over to three Members of Parliament including Shelly Glover from the Conservatives, Mark Holland from the Liberals and Joe Comartin from the New Democrats.

In his first question, Evan asked Shelly Glover if she could explain why CSC's budget has risen so sharply "in a time of austerity".

Shelly Glover's response: "Well, there's a cost to protecting the interests of our victims and certainly that cost is being reflected. But I have to disagree with some of the numbers you are presenting Evan. Numbers can be skewed any which way we, you want depending on who's doing it. I will confirm that costs have gone up and we will continue to put money into this system to ensure that victims are protected..."

Knowing that I had gone over the "numbers" repeatedly to ensure that I was disseminating CSC's own budget figures accurately to Canadians and to avoid a libel suit, I sat beside Evan on the set in disbelief as the Conservative MP challenged the numbers I compiled based on her own government's figures.

On this issue, Evan asked Glover the following question: "If these numbers are wrong, can you give us a confirmation? What's the correct figure?"

Shelly Glover: "Well the correct figure depends on what you're talking about. They have gone up. If you're talking specifically about things like renovations and expansions from within, there's a number there. There's increases to salaries, there's increases to numbers of people who are working within the facilities to allow for rehabilitative measures for our inmates because we want to give them the best possible chance to move away from a life of crime. All of those things cost money. So yes there's been an increase, but it's well worth it. I think Canadians expect us to protect their interests and they know there is a cost associated to that."

During this intervention, Glover had an opportunity to provide Canadians with additional details on her government's federal prisons system expenditures. Instead, she obscured the figures I presented, stating expenditure items without attaching a cost figure. So let's go over some of the numbers again.

Glover stated "If you're talking specifically about renovations and expansions from within, there's a number there". Indeed there is. This number is part of CSC's capital expenditures. In the 2005-2006 federal budget, the Liberals allocated $138.2 million towards capital expenditures. In the four fiscal years the Conservatives have been in office, they have allocated $987.2 million to this end (an average of $246.8 million per year). The projected capital expenditures figure for this year is $329.4 million, up 138.4% from when the Liberals were last in office. The government's own projections for 2012-2013 have Canadians shelling-out $466.9 million in CSC capital expenditures, up 237.8% from when the Liberals were last in office.

Glover then stated "There's increases to salaries, there's increases to numbers of people who are working within the facilities to allow for rehabilitative measures for our inmates because we want to give them the best possible chance to move away from a life of crime". While they have planned to increase staff in all areas of CSC's portfolio, out of the projected 4,119 staff increase from 2010-2011 to 2012-13, only 898 positions (or 21.8% of new hires) are being added specifically for the "Correctional Interventions" portion of the portfolio, in comparison to 2,752 positions (or 66.8% of new hires) being added to the "Custody" portion of the portfolio.

After dismissing her government's own figures, Glover continued to speak her 'truth' and criticized the findings concerning the country's steadily declining 'crime' rate compiled by Statistics Canada, "Canada's central statistical agency" that "produces statistics that help Canadians better understand their country - its population, resources, economy, society and culture" (about Statistics Canada).

Instead of making use of the statistics to inform her views on 'crime' and punishment in Canada, Shelley Glover went on the attack: "Numbers can be skewed in any which way, but I do take issue with the misleading comments made by my colleagues. I worked in this system. I'll tell you straightforward, Canadians are seeing an increase in crime. I don't care what Stats Canada has reported, because they only count reported crime. They do not count unreported crimes and as a police officer I'll tell you, I worked sex crimes for four and a half years. 92 percent of sex crime victims do not report their crime because they don't have faith in the justice system, they are fearing retribution, they really do have a number of reasons for not reporting."

While imperfect, it should be noted that Statistics Canada's figures on 'crime' rates come directly from police agencies from across the country. Being a former police officer herself, one would think that Glover would not dismiss these figures. But as we've observed, the Conservative Party doesn't like to acknowledge statistics unless they support their legislative agenda. Isn't it a bit rich that at the beginning of the MP scrum Glover dismissed the CSC budget figures I had presented that were compiled from documents her government produced, trashed Statistics Canada and then pulled-out her own figures without providing sources to support her claims?

After rail-roading Statistics Canada, who's objective is to provide "a solid foundation for informed decisions by elected representatives, businesses, unions and non-profit organizations, as well as individual Canadians", Glover engaged in wedge politics at its best, stating "...let's not forget that the Liberals have an interest here because, predominantly, prison inmates vote Liberal during elections. Cops vote Conservative. There is a clear interest for the prisoners to be voting for 'soft on crime' legislation that the Liberals put forward". And the figures to support this claim... not tabled.

This being said, the Conservatives may not be able to count on the support of police, not that they could of before as police officers, like the rest of Canadians, are a diverse group of people with different political views. For instance, Conservative politicians and many police officers across the country disagree when it comes to the gun-registry. One such police officer is Charles Momy, President of the Canadian Police Association (CPA), who stated his association was "in favour" of the gun-registry at a recent public forum aired on March 28, 2010 on The Sunday Edition (listen to Hour Two, minutes 7:10 to 8:00). Momy then went on to say that "if the long-gun registry were abolished today, there would be a savings of $3 million a year, that's it. $3 million a year savings when it comes to the long-gun registry if it was abolished and it would be, in fact, a crime if it were abolished as far as the CPA is concerned". On this issue and many others, the Conservatives have ignored dissenting voices. This example illustrates that, like victims, police are only consulted when their views coincide with the Conservative Party's addiction to incarceration.

Ignore statistics and academic research.

Ignore your own budget figures.

Ignore dissenting voices, including police officers, rather than engaging in dialogue.

Omit, obscure, obstruct.

This is what penal policy looks like when the 'facts', as contested as they may be, don't matter.

Unnecessary, expensive, ineffective, unjust and undemocratic.