Day 3 of the International Conference on Penal Abolition (ICOPA) picked-up where Day 1 and Day 2 left off with a plenary on the work of the Australian Prison Project. Presentations in the second session addressed the role of language amongst Republican political prisoners during the Troubles, penal abolitionism and prisoner movements in Western Europe during the 1960s and 1970s, and the increasing use of philanthropic discourses used by the NGO and voluntary sectors to promote the extension of carceral controls outside prison. The afternoon session was dedicated to the life and work of Louk Hulsman, with presentations from Phil Scraton and Jehanne Hulsman.
As the conference winded-down, the discussion turned towards the future of ICOPA. After a few hours of dialogue it was decided that the conference-movement would work towards the launch of a website that would create a space to provide information on penal abolitionism, as well as facilitate exchanges amongst those engaged in abolitionist work and those involved in related struggles. It was also resolved that the next conference would tentatively be held in Trinidad and Tobago, subject to a six month review, and that Ottawa would serve as the event site should it become evident that its abolitionist agenda would be compromised by state interference.
The conference ended with the launch of Justice Action's OUR PICK Report which provides an analysis of the corrupt health industry in Australia, and proposes a pathway for mental helath patients and prisoners going forward.
A first series of videos featuring presentations from ICOPA 13 is now posted online (view here). Check back in the days and weeks ahead for new videos from the conference as they are edited and uploaded on the site.
Saturday, June 26, 2010
Friday, June 25, 2010
Day 2 at the International Conference on Penal Abolition
Continuing the discussion on inside-outside collaborations, Day 2 of the International Conference on Penal Abolition (ICOPA) began with a short presentation on the Journal of Prisoners on Prisons. This was followed by presentations of works authored or co-authored by prisoners and ex-prisoners. One panel held during the second morning session featured presentations on rights inside prisons and in societies more broadly such as England, the Netherlands as well as Trinidad and Tobago. A second panel focussed on the role of abolition in the academy, women’s imprisonment and abolition, and the shocking levels of overcrowding and associated issues in South African prisons. Discussion in the afternoon session centered on criminalisation, prisons and communities in Ireland.
The proceedings were followed by a community visit in Belfast where conference delegates participated on a tour of Loyalist and Republican neighbourhoods divided by a two story ‘peace’ wall led by former political prisoners. The day ended with a viewing of H3 – an award winning film made in 2001 shot in the H Blocks, written by former Hunger Striker Laurence McKeown and ex-prisoner Brian Campbell – which traces the context, circumstances and consequences of the policy of criminalisation of political prisoners, the refusal of the Thatcher Government to negotiate and the 1981 Hunger Strikes. The day ended with a Q&A with Hunger Striker Pat Sheehan held over dinner at An Cultúrlann, culture and arts centre.
The proceedings were followed by a community visit in Belfast where conference delegates participated on a tour of Loyalist and Republican neighbourhoods divided by a two story ‘peace’ wall led by former political prisoners. The day ended with a viewing of H3 – an award winning film made in 2001 shot in the H Blocks, written by former Hunger Striker Laurence McKeown and ex-prisoner Brian Campbell – which traces the context, circumstances and consequences of the policy of criminalisation of political prisoners, the refusal of the Thatcher Government to negotiate and the 1981 Hunger Strikes. The day ended with a Q&A with Hunger Striker Pat Sheehan held over dinner at An Cultúrlann, culture and arts centre.
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Day 1 at the International Conference on Penal Abolition
Throughout its history (1983 to present), the International Conference on Penal Abolition (ICOPA) has sought to shape debates on penal system policy internationally, as well as locally where the conference has been held, including Toronto and Montreal (Canada), Amsterdam (Netherlands), Kazimierz (Poland), Bloomington (USA), San Jose (Costa Rica), Barcelona (Spain), Auckland (New Zealand / Aotearos), Lagos (Nigeria), Tasmania (Australia) and London (England). At a critical period in the history of Ireland as justice and policing powers are devolved from the UK Parliament to the North Ireland Assembly, ICOPA is being held in Belfast (June 23-25).
As activists, advocates, academics, journalists, ex-prisoners and other fellow travellers gathered for Day 1 of the conference, a number of issues were brought to the table.
Highlights include:
- The opening plenary on the state of prisons in Ireland featured the launch of ActionPrisons, the first abolitionist prison group founded in the North and South.
- Parallel sessions included a panel on women's imprisonment issues and abolition, and a session which focussed on the activities of groups such as the Coordinadora of Spanish Prisoners in Struggle (COPEL), Critical Resistance in the United States, and the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies.
- The afternoon plenary featured a roundtable where international delegates discussed their views of what is to be abolished, the strategies used to achieve their aims, and alternatives that have been put into place to address complex harms and conflicts in our respective communities that are commonly called 'crime'.
- The day closed with a panel featuring the work of Inside-Out - a program where prisoners and students take university-level courses together inside prisons, and the work of The Educational Shakespeare Company (ESC) staff members and volunteers including ex-prisoner Sam Henry.
- The evening featured the second public screening of the outstanding adaptation of Macbeth in a contemporary prison produced by ESC (view trailer). It was filmed entirely in Maghaberry High Security Prison, N. Ireland with long-term prisoners who also built the sets. The screening was followed by a documentary on the making of the film, as well as a Q&A session with the Director, Tom Magill, himself a former prisoner, and with Sam Maclean, now released after nearly 30 years inside, who plays Duncan in the film.
With a great day behind us, those of us in attendance are very much looking forward to what the days ahead of us in Belfast will bring. To connect those not present - but who are here in spirit to ICOPA - international delegates on the ground have been filming as many of the presentations and discussions as possible and will be making the videos available on YouTube in the days ahead. Links to these videos will be posted on Tracking the Politics of 'Crime' and Punishment in Canada, as well as other websites.
Stay tuned.
As activists, advocates, academics, journalists, ex-prisoners and other fellow travellers gathered for Day 1 of the conference, a number of issues were brought to the table.
Highlights include:
- The opening plenary on the state of prisons in Ireland featured the launch of ActionPrisons, the first abolitionist prison group founded in the North and South.
- Parallel sessions included a panel on women's imprisonment issues and abolition, and a session which focussed on the activities of groups such as the Coordinadora of Spanish Prisoners in Struggle (COPEL), Critical Resistance in the United States, and the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies.
- The afternoon plenary featured a roundtable where international delegates discussed their views of what is to be abolished, the strategies used to achieve their aims, and alternatives that have been put into place to address complex harms and conflicts in our respective communities that are commonly called 'crime'.
- The day closed with a panel featuring the work of Inside-Out - a program where prisoners and students take university-level courses together inside prisons, and the work of The Educational Shakespeare Company (ESC) staff members and volunteers including ex-prisoner Sam Henry.
- The evening featured the second public screening of the outstanding adaptation of Macbeth in a contemporary prison produced by ESC (view trailer). It was filmed entirely in Maghaberry High Security Prison, N. Ireland with long-term prisoners who also built the sets. The screening was followed by a documentary on the making of the film, as well as a Q&A session with the Director, Tom Magill, himself a former prisoner, and with Sam Maclean, now released after nearly 30 years inside, who plays Duncan in the film.
With a great day behind us, those of us in attendance are very much looking forward to what the days ahead of us in Belfast will bring. To connect those not present - but who are here in spirit to ICOPA - international delegates on the ground have been filming as many of the presentations and discussions as possible and will be making the videos available on YouTube in the days ahead. Links to these videos will be posted on Tracking the Politics of 'Crime' and Punishment in Canada, as well as other websites.
Stay tuned.
CSC Commissioner Don Head Responds to PBO Report on Bill C-25 Implementation Costs
Yesterday, the Parliamentary Budget Office (PBO) released its report on the costs of implementing Bill C-25 which eliminated the 2 days credit for 1 day served in remand for individuals sentenced to a prison term (read 22 June 2010 post). Late last night, Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) Commissioner Don Head assured Canadians that "Prisons are ready for the rush" at the federal level (read 22 June 2010 Calgary Sun op-ed).
The projected figures related to the implementation of Bill C-25 compiled by CSC include:
- A prisoner increase of 3,400 individuals.
- The creation of 2,700 additional spaces in existing facilities.
Other notable points include:
- An "increase in shared cell accommodation" (double-bunking).
- The development of a "long-term plan that takes into account the need to replace some penitentiaries that have stood the test of time for many decades and no longer meet the requirements of a modern correctional system".
While this press release by another name raises a number of issues, here are a few points to consider:
1) While CSC and Public Safety Minister Vic Toews has now released its figures associated with the implementation of Bill C-25, it has not yet provided Canadians with the methodology used to arrive at these figures so that we can evaluate whether to trust the organization's or the PBO's projections.
2) This press release does not address why CSC cancelled many meetings scheduled with PBO officials in preparation for their report, which is a non-transparent and unaccountable stance.
3) This press release still does not address the provincial-territorial costs associated with implementing Bill C-25. Did the government not bother to compile such figures? If not, this is quite irresponsible given the implications. If so, why haven't these figures been made public?
4) Even if CSC's figures are proven to be more accurate over time than those of the PBO (which is doubtful given the current minority government's track record concerning fiscal projections), these are the costs for just one of the punishment bills passed by Parliament. What are the projections for the other bills that have been passed or are currently before the House of Commons and Senate? Why hasn't CSC or the government provided Canadians with those figures concerning the cumulative costs of these pieces of legislation so that we can have a proper democratic debate on this issue?
5) The use of double-bunking goes against CSC Commissioner Directive 550 which states that single-bunking is the most "correctionally appropriate" practice. If this was the case when this directive was written years ago, what has changed that has led CSC - a self-proclaimed "world class" leader in imprisonment - to abandon this practice as an ideal worth pursuing? Is this change of heart rooted in any research produced by academics or CSC's own researchers that shows that double-bunking enhances safety in prisons, the prospects of rehabilitation and public safety in the long-term once prisoners are released into the community? Or rather, is it the case that such a decision was made by their political masters on a whim because they believe that incarceration needs to be made as painful as possible, as if depriving someone of their liberty is not painful enough?
6) Given that CSC is developing a long-term plan to replace some of their existing penitentiaries that are aging and deemed outmoded precisely at a time when their prison population is set to rise - which is another way of saying that they are planning to build new facilities, why has their Minister repeatedly stated that CSC will not be building new prisons over the past few months? Is it the case that Toews didn't know what was going on and didn't believe new penitentiaries were being planned or is it the case that Toews has known that this plan is in the works and was lying to Canadians? In either case, it is incumbent upon CSC and their political masters of the day to consult Canadians about their forthcoming multi-billion penitentiary construction plans before the shovels are in the ground. To do anything less would represent nothing less than an authoritarian way of conducting governmental business.
The projected figures related to the implementation of Bill C-25 compiled by CSC include:
- A prisoner increase of 3,400 individuals.
- The creation of 2,700 additional spaces in existing facilities.
Other notable points include:
- An "increase in shared cell accommodation" (double-bunking).
- The development of a "long-term plan that takes into account the need to replace some penitentiaries that have stood the test of time for many decades and no longer meet the requirements of a modern correctional system".
While this press release by another name raises a number of issues, here are a few points to consider:
1) While CSC and Public Safety Minister Vic Toews has now released its figures associated with the implementation of Bill C-25, it has not yet provided Canadians with the methodology used to arrive at these figures so that we can evaluate whether to trust the organization's or the PBO's projections.
2) This press release does not address why CSC cancelled many meetings scheduled with PBO officials in preparation for their report, which is a non-transparent and unaccountable stance.
3) This press release still does not address the provincial-territorial costs associated with implementing Bill C-25. Did the government not bother to compile such figures? If not, this is quite irresponsible given the implications. If so, why haven't these figures been made public?
4) Even if CSC's figures are proven to be more accurate over time than those of the PBO (which is doubtful given the current minority government's track record concerning fiscal projections), these are the costs for just one of the punishment bills passed by Parliament. What are the projections for the other bills that have been passed or are currently before the House of Commons and Senate? Why hasn't CSC or the government provided Canadians with those figures concerning the cumulative costs of these pieces of legislation so that we can have a proper democratic debate on this issue?
5) The use of double-bunking goes against CSC Commissioner Directive 550 which states that single-bunking is the most "correctionally appropriate" practice. If this was the case when this directive was written years ago, what has changed that has led CSC - a self-proclaimed "world class" leader in imprisonment - to abandon this practice as an ideal worth pursuing? Is this change of heart rooted in any research produced by academics or CSC's own researchers that shows that double-bunking enhances safety in prisons, the prospects of rehabilitation and public safety in the long-term once prisoners are released into the community? Or rather, is it the case that such a decision was made by their political masters on a whim because they believe that incarceration needs to be made as painful as possible, as if depriving someone of their liberty is not painful enough?
6) Given that CSC is developing a long-term plan to replace some of their existing penitentiaries that are aging and deemed outmoded precisely at a time when their prison population is set to rise - which is another way of saying that they are planning to build new facilities, why has their Minister repeatedly stated that CSC will not be building new prisons over the past few months? Is it the case that Toews didn't know what was going on and didn't believe new penitentiaries were being planned or is it the case that Toews has known that this plan is in the works and was lying to Canadians? In either case, it is incumbent upon CSC and their political masters of the day to consult Canadians about their forthcoming multi-billion penitentiary construction plans before the shovels are in the ground. To do anything less would represent nothing less than an authoritarian way of conducting governmental business.
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
"The Funding Requirement and Impact of the "Truth in Sentencing Act" on the Correctional Service of Canada": PBO Report on Bill C-25 Released
Earlier today, the Parliamentary Budget Office (PBO) released its report - The Funding Requirement and Impact of the "The Truth Sentencing Act" on the Correctional Service of Canada - on the financial costs of implementing Bill C-25 (read here).
Main findings pertaining to federal penitentiary system expenditures over the next five years include:
- Forecasted additional cell requirement = 4,189
- Forecasted facility construction costs = $1.8 billion
- Forecasted facility operation and management costs = $618 million per year
Main findings pertaining to provincial-territorial prison systems' expenditures over the next five years include:
- 2009-2010 total prison expenditures in Canada= $4.4 billion (federal = $2.2 billion or 51 percent / provincial-territorial = $2.15 billion)
- Projected 2015-2016 total prison expenditures in Canada = $9.5 billion (federal = $4.18 billion or 44 percent / provincial-territorial = $5.23 billion)
While I will comment more thoroughly on the implications of today's report as well as the reaction to its findings in the media and amongst federal parliamentarians at a later date, it appears that some of my predictions regarding the main story lines are emerging (read 18 June 2010 post). For example, the main thrust of this debate appears to be over whose figures ought to be trusted concerning the fiscal costs of implementing Bill C-25. Shall we trust the figures of the PBO which have published their methodology and findings for the public to scrutinize or those allegedly prepared by the Correctional Service of Canada that Public Safety Minister Vic Toews has made public without access to the paper trail that would allow us to examine how they came to their numbers? Time will tell who Canadians decide to believe and what the implications of this will be.
News stories:
- Canada.com
- Toronto Star (article)
- Toronto Star (editorial)
- Globe and Mail (article)
- Globe and Mail (editorial)
- CBC News
- CTV News
Commentary:
- Kevin Page on CBC's Power & Politics
- Kevin Page on CTV's Power Play
- Vic Toews on CBC's Power & Politics
- Vic Toews on CTV's Power Play
- MP's react on Toews vs. Page on CBC's Power & Politics
(third segment following interviews with Page and Toews)
- Liberal Party of Canada
- New Democratic Party of Canada
Main findings pertaining to federal penitentiary system expenditures over the next five years include:
- Forecasted additional cell requirement = 4,189
- Forecasted facility construction costs = $1.8 billion
- Forecasted facility operation and management costs = $618 million per year
Main findings pertaining to provincial-territorial prison systems' expenditures over the next five years include:
- 2009-2010 total prison expenditures in Canada= $4.4 billion (federal = $2.2 billion or 51 percent / provincial-territorial = $2.15 billion)
- Projected 2015-2016 total prison expenditures in Canada = $9.5 billion (federal = $4.18 billion or 44 percent / provincial-territorial = $5.23 billion)
While I will comment more thoroughly on the implications of today's report as well as the reaction to its findings in the media and amongst federal parliamentarians at a later date, it appears that some of my predictions regarding the main story lines are emerging (read 18 June 2010 post). For example, the main thrust of this debate appears to be over whose figures ought to be trusted concerning the fiscal costs of implementing Bill C-25. Shall we trust the figures of the PBO which have published their methodology and findings for the public to scrutinize or those allegedly prepared by the Correctional Service of Canada that Public Safety Minister Vic Toews has made public without access to the paper trail that would allow us to examine how they came to their numbers? Time will tell who Canadians decide to believe and what the implications of this will be.
News stories:
- Canada.com
- Toronto Star (article)
- Toronto Star (editorial)
- Globe and Mail (article)
- Globe and Mail (editorial)
- CBC News
- CTV News
Commentary:
- Kevin Page on CBC's Power & Politics
- Kevin Page on CTV's Power Play
- Vic Toews on CBC's Power & Politics
- Vic Toews on CTV's Power Play
- MP's react on Toews vs. Page on CBC's Power & Politics
(third segment following interviews with Page and Toews)
- Liberal Party of Canada
- New Democratic Party of Canada
We Are Not Alone: Ireland and UK Facing Similar Challenges When it Comes to Prison Expansion
Yesterday, I presented a paper on prison expansion in Canada at the 6th North / South Irish Criminology Conference. As I unpacked my findings and provided an overview of legislative developments taking place in my country I could see heads in the audience shaking in disapproval. These reactions made me nervous and I wondered whether I had poorly conveyed what I wanted to say.
As the session and day went on I was able to lay my insecurities to rest as those I spoke with shared their stories of prison expansion in Ireland and the UK. During these conversations, the common question I was asked was "why?" Why is Canada increasing their reliance on incarceration precisely at a time when such policies have failed to enhance safety in communities elsewhere in the world? Why is Canada on a path to building more prisons when it has disasterous impacts by any measure, economic or otherwise?
While I won't go into the details of my responses here, I do encourage our parliamentarians to consider what is taking place elsewhere in the world, particularly in nations that have more comparable imprisonment rates (Canada's prison rate: 117 per 100,000). Calls for or actions taken to reduce a jurisdiction's reliance on incarceration is not simply an American phenomenon (prison rate: 753 per 100,000).
In Ireland (prison rate: 93 per 100,000), where prison numbers are on the rise, groups such as the Irish Penal Reform Trust are encouraging their elected representatives to stop playing politics with 'crime' and punishment, and to undertake "an urgent review of sentencing practice and policy, rather than persisting with its “white elephant” proposals to build more prison spaces" (read here).
In the UK (prison rate: 152 per 100,000 residents), a parliamentary committee composed of representatives across the political spectrum, including the Labour and Conservative parties, released a report in January 2010 that concluded that "prison building is not the answer" and that alternatives needed to be pursued to address issues of safety in the communities they represent (read here). Even the country's Prison Governors Association, which is hardly a group of individuals one could ever label 'soft on crime', has called for a halt to prison construction (read here).
What these experiences demonstrate is that calling for a reduction in the use of imprisonment is not a partisan issue in other countries, but one that is getting support across the political spectrum because mass incarceration has proven itself to be bad social policy. Hopefully politicians in Canada are taking notice and can see that this discussion does not have to be a wedge issue where the choice is either to be 'tough' or 'soft' on 'crime'.
While passing punishment legislation may signal to voters that "something is being done", if our political representatives were serious about addressing these complex harms and conflicts in our communities they would step up to the plate and work with others to devise creative and effective responses rather than offering us concrete boxes as tokens of their (in)action.
As the session and day went on I was able to lay my insecurities to rest as those I spoke with shared their stories of prison expansion in Ireland and the UK. During these conversations, the common question I was asked was "why?" Why is Canada increasing their reliance on incarceration precisely at a time when such policies have failed to enhance safety in communities elsewhere in the world? Why is Canada on a path to building more prisons when it has disasterous impacts by any measure, economic or otherwise?
While I won't go into the details of my responses here, I do encourage our parliamentarians to consider what is taking place elsewhere in the world, particularly in nations that have more comparable imprisonment rates (Canada's prison rate: 117 per 100,000). Calls for or actions taken to reduce a jurisdiction's reliance on incarceration is not simply an American phenomenon (prison rate: 753 per 100,000).
In Ireland (prison rate: 93 per 100,000), where prison numbers are on the rise, groups such as the Irish Penal Reform Trust are encouraging their elected representatives to stop playing politics with 'crime' and punishment, and to undertake "an urgent review of sentencing practice and policy, rather than persisting with its “white elephant” proposals to build more prison spaces" (read here).
In the UK (prison rate: 152 per 100,000 residents), a parliamentary committee composed of representatives across the political spectrum, including the Labour and Conservative parties, released a report in January 2010 that concluded that "prison building is not the answer" and that alternatives needed to be pursued to address issues of safety in the communities they represent (read here). Even the country's Prison Governors Association, which is hardly a group of individuals one could ever label 'soft on crime', has called for a halt to prison construction (read here).
What these experiences demonstrate is that calling for a reduction in the use of imprisonment is not a partisan issue in other countries, but one that is getting support across the political spectrum because mass incarceration has proven itself to be bad social policy. Hopefully politicians in Canada are taking notice and can see that this discussion does not have to be a wedge issue where the choice is either to be 'tough' or 'soft' on 'crime'.
While passing punishment legislation may signal to voters that "something is being done", if our political representatives were serious about addressing these complex harms and conflicts in our communities they would step up to the plate and work with others to devise creative and effective responses rather than offering us concrete boxes as tokens of their (in)action.
Friday, June 18, 2010
Story Lines to Watch for: PBO Report on Projected Costs of Bill C-25 to be Released on Tuesday
After almost two months of media coverage in anticipation of its findings regarding the implementation of Bill C-25 which came into force this past February, Janice Tibbetts reports (read here) that the Parliamentary Budget Office's (PBO) report entitled The Funding Requirement and Impact of the "Truth in Sentencing Act" on the Correctional System in Canada is set to be released on Tuesday. While a number of possible story lines may emerge as a result of this study going public, I believe three will play out in the days, weeks and months ahead.
Story Line 1: Toews vs. Page
No matter the figures presented by Kevin Page - the Parliamentary Budget Officer - on Tuesday, Minister of Public Safety Vic Toews will reiterate that his number crunchers have pegged the cost of implementing Bill C-25 at $2 billion over five years. This is a far cry from the $6 billion to $10 billion price tag the PBO has reportedly come up with, which begs the question: given the discrepancy, whose numbers will we trust?
Shall we trust 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) 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 the 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 never release the methodology used to project their figures or a full cost estimate to the public so that democratic debate can take place because they would "rather not share" those costs with Canadians?
Story Line 2: Provinces and Territories vs. Feds
In the weeks since the chatter began regarding the PBO's report, a number of provinces and territories have publicly stated that they do not have sufficient space, even with new facilities coming online, to absorb the influx of new prisoners serving longer sentences inside penal institutions resulting from Conservative punishment legislation. This leaves them with few options.
[This may perhaps explain why I was invited to discuss the findings of my report, An Overview of Prison Expansion in Canada (available upon request), as well as share my views concerning the cumulative impacts of the Government of Canada's so-called tough on crime agenda and alternatives that could be mobilized to relieve pressure from the institutions they oversee to the Provincial-Territorial Heads of Corrections last month (read presentation notes).]
One option would be to build new prisons - but who would pay for them? In a context of declining police-report 'crime' rates and a fiscal crisis, building multi-million dollar prisons is a dubious proposition. This has led provinces such as Ontario to state that it would like the Feds to cover a portion of that bill if this is the path taken (read 29 April 2010 post).
A second option would involve stuffing their already overcrowded prisons with additional prisoners. Nunavut is one territory which appears to be taking this stance despite the considerable risks and certain harms (read 13 May 2010 post). The heat that comes with embarking on such a path in the form of labour disputes over employee safety and violence amongst prisioners makes this a hardly tenable position (for example, read 16 June 2010 post).
A third option would be for the provinces and territories to call for a Canadian punishment legislation moratorium that would put a halt to increasing our reliance on incarceration, or at the very least, ask that cross-jurisdictional impacts be studied and costed-out while federal parliamentarians debate the merits of sentencing bills so that all stakeholders concerned can assess whether or not proposed laws can be implemented and what the collateral consequences may be.
While it is difficult to tell how the provinces and territories will react to the projected cumulative impacts of the Conservative punishment agenda, the status quo - where they either remain silent for fear of being labelled 'soft on crime' or speak in lock-step with their federal counterparts as they have since 2006 - is likely to come to an end.
Story Line 3: Will the Conservative Punishment Agenda
encounter robust opposition?
To date, the provinces and territories have spent $2.83 billion on establishing 22 new prisons and constructing additions to 16 existing facilities. This price tag does not include the millions upon millions it will cost to operate and manage these new facilities.
With these costs and those being projected by the PBO, it will be interesting to see whether federal parliamentarians of all political stripes and Canadians will support what is turning into a multi-billion dollar punishment agenda. Will they support an agenda that diverts funds away from social expenditures that are proven to reduce 'crime' in our communities and may lead to higher taxes to cover our prison mortgages that we'll have to pay in the decades ahead? Will they support an agenda that academics and practitioners have criticized because decades of research indicates that increasing our reliance on incarceration will not enhance safety in our communities in the long-term?
Final Thoughts for Today
If the imprisonment binge in the United States over the past three decades has shown us anything it is that at some point the prison buck stops because it proves itself to be ineffective. It proves itself to be economically unviable. It proves itself to be damaging to those impacted by the complex harms and conflicts in our communities we call 'crime'.
I'm 28 years old and will be paying taxes in this country for years to come. I also intend to have children at some point and want them to live in a safe society. I do not want to have to tell them when they are my age and still paying the last years of the mortgages for the prisons being built today that I stood by silently as my political representatives obscured the facts to pursue policies that made our streets less safe, and diverted funds away that could have been used to improve the health and quality of retirement life of their grandparents. I do not want to have to tell them that we knew what would come of increasing our reliance on incarceration based on the experiences of our neighbours to the south, but we chose to ignore history. These are stories I hope I never have to tell my kids. How about you?
Story Line 1: Toews vs. Page
No matter the figures presented by Kevin Page - the Parliamentary Budget Officer - on Tuesday, Minister of Public Safety Vic Toews will reiterate that his number crunchers have pegged the cost of implementing Bill C-25 at $2 billion over five years. This is a far cry from the $6 billion to $10 billion price tag the PBO has reportedly come up with, which begs the question: given the discrepancy, whose numbers will we trust?
Shall we trust 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) 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 the 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 never release the methodology used to project their figures or a full cost estimate to the public so that democratic debate can take place because they would "rather not share" those costs with Canadians?
Story Line 2: Provinces and Territories vs. Feds
In the weeks since the chatter began regarding the PBO's report, a number of provinces and territories have publicly stated that they do not have sufficient space, even with new facilities coming online, to absorb the influx of new prisoners serving longer sentences inside penal institutions resulting from Conservative punishment legislation. This leaves them with few options.
[This may perhaps explain why I was invited to discuss the findings of my report, An Overview of Prison Expansion in Canada (available upon request), as well as share my views concerning the cumulative impacts of the Government of Canada's so-called tough on crime agenda and alternatives that could be mobilized to relieve pressure from the institutions they oversee to the Provincial-Territorial Heads of Corrections last month (read presentation notes).]
One option would be to build new prisons - but who would pay for them? In a context of declining police-report 'crime' rates and a fiscal crisis, building multi-million dollar prisons is a dubious proposition. This has led provinces such as Ontario to state that it would like the Feds to cover a portion of that bill if this is the path taken (read 29 April 2010 post).
A second option would involve stuffing their already overcrowded prisons with additional prisoners. Nunavut is one territory which appears to be taking this stance despite the considerable risks and certain harms (read 13 May 2010 post). The heat that comes with embarking on such a path in the form of labour disputes over employee safety and violence amongst prisioners makes this a hardly tenable position (for example, read 16 June 2010 post).
A third option would be for the provinces and territories to call for a Canadian punishment legislation moratorium that would put a halt to increasing our reliance on incarceration, or at the very least, ask that cross-jurisdictional impacts be studied and costed-out while federal parliamentarians debate the merits of sentencing bills so that all stakeholders concerned can assess whether or not proposed laws can be implemented and what the collateral consequences may be.
While it is difficult to tell how the provinces and territories will react to the projected cumulative impacts of the Conservative punishment agenda, the status quo - where they either remain silent for fear of being labelled 'soft on crime' or speak in lock-step with their federal counterparts as they have since 2006 - is likely to come to an end.
Story Line 3: Will the Conservative Punishment Agenda
encounter robust opposition?
To date, the provinces and territories have spent $2.83 billion on establishing 22 new prisons and constructing additions to 16 existing facilities. This price tag does not include the millions upon millions it will cost to operate and manage these new facilities.
With these costs and those being projected by the PBO, it will be interesting to see whether federal parliamentarians of all political stripes and Canadians will support what is turning into a multi-billion dollar punishment agenda. Will they support an agenda that diverts funds away from social expenditures that are proven to reduce 'crime' in our communities and may lead to higher taxes to cover our prison mortgages that we'll have to pay in the decades ahead? Will they support an agenda that academics and practitioners have criticized because decades of research indicates that increasing our reliance on incarceration will not enhance safety in our communities in the long-term?
Final Thoughts for Today
If the imprisonment binge in the United States over the past three decades has shown us anything it is that at some point the prison buck stops because it proves itself to be ineffective. It proves itself to be economically unviable. It proves itself to be damaging to those impacted by the complex harms and conflicts in our communities we call 'crime'.
I'm 28 years old and will be paying taxes in this country for years to come. I also intend to have children at some point and want them to live in a safe society. I do not want to have to tell them when they are my age and still paying the last years of the mortgages for the prisons being built today that I stood by silently as my political representatives obscured the facts to pursue policies that made our streets less safe, and diverted funds away that could have been used to improve the health and quality of retirement life of their grandparents. I do not want to have to tell them that we knew what would come of increasing our reliance on incarceration based on the experiences of our neighbours to the south, but we chose to ignore history. These are stories I hope I never have to tell my kids. How about you?
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Provinces Left Holding the Bag: Prison Overcrowding Leads to Labour Disputes and Violence
In a presentation given to the Provincial-Territorial Heads of Corrections (read here), I asked those present who will be left holding the bag as the federal Conservatives grab the headlines by drafting, advertising, tabling, killing (through prorogation), re-tabling and eventually passing punishment bills? What would be the cumulative impacts of the Conservative punishment agenda on already over-burdened provincial-territorial prison systems?
Based on previous times where overcrowding has been a major issue for prison systems across Canada, I identified a number of challenges that we would likely encounter moving forward, including labour disputes over unsafe working conditions and prisoner unrest. In the time since my presentation we have witnessed a few examples that suggest my forecast may unfortunately turn-out to be correct.
Last week, CBC News reported that the Manitoba Government Employees Union held a protest in front of the provincial legislature where they called for the construction of a new prison because they claimed "there are currrently nearly 2,300 inmates being held in jails built to house a capacity of 1,678" (read here). Andrew Swan, Attorney General of Manitoba, addressed the crowd and stated that his government was expanding the capacity of the provincial prison system by 450 beds.
CBC News also reported that "a two-hour riot" took place yesterday at the Central Nova Scotia Correctional Facility (read here). One prisoner was injured in the disturbance that took place in a provincial facility "designed to hold 225 male and 48 female inmates in single cells" where "prisoners are often placed two to a cell because of overcrowding". While some, including federal Minister of Public Safety Vic Toews, have argued that double-bunking is 'normal' practice, such incidents illustrate how such abnormal living conditions can fuel violence inside prison walls which puts the safety of prisoners and law enforcement officials at risk.
In a context of declining police-reported 'crime' rates and a fiscal crisis, building new multi-million dollar prisons is hardly a justifiable proposition. Contributing to a capacity crisis by passing federal legislation that will further compound overcrowding in our penal institutions when the consequences will continue to be catastrophic is also untenable and morally reprehensible, particularly when we know that these measures will not reduce 'crime'.
Earlier this week, Stockwell Day - President of the Treasury Board of Canada - announced "that cash awards will be given to public service employees with a creative and practical idea that leads to tangible savings and improved services to Canadians" (read here). While the Employee Innovation Program does not appear to include individuals who work for the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC), it does not mean that staff from this agency cannot take the initiative and put forward proposals on how to save Canadian taxpayers money while delivering better results.
Given that CSC's budget is projected to rise by $466.2 million (or 18.9 percent) from 2010-2011 to 2011-2012 and another 201.8 million (or 6.9 percent) from 2011-2012 to 2012-2013, perhaps officials could begin to "embark upon our road to deficit reduction... essential for the government to live within its means and identify substantial savings" set-out by Stockwell Day. This plan could involve a federal punishment legislation moratorium, reversing sentencing laws that have been passed since 2006, and making investments in education, employment and affordable housing that are proven to prevent 'crime' while saving taxpayer dollars.
Based on previous times where overcrowding has been a major issue for prison systems across Canada, I identified a number of challenges that we would likely encounter moving forward, including labour disputes over unsafe working conditions and prisoner unrest. In the time since my presentation we have witnessed a few examples that suggest my forecast may unfortunately turn-out to be correct.
Last week, CBC News reported that the Manitoba Government Employees Union held a protest in front of the provincial legislature where they called for the construction of a new prison because they claimed "there are currrently nearly 2,300 inmates being held in jails built to house a capacity of 1,678" (read here). Andrew Swan, Attorney General of Manitoba, addressed the crowd and stated that his government was expanding the capacity of the provincial prison system by 450 beds.
CBC News also reported that "a two-hour riot" took place yesterday at the Central Nova Scotia Correctional Facility (read here). One prisoner was injured in the disturbance that took place in a provincial facility "designed to hold 225 male and 48 female inmates in single cells" where "prisoners are often placed two to a cell because of overcrowding". While some, including federal Minister of Public Safety Vic Toews, have argued that double-bunking is 'normal' practice, such incidents illustrate how such abnormal living conditions can fuel violence inside prison walls which puts the safety of prisoners and law enforcement officials at risk.
In a context of declining police-reported 'crime' rates and a fiscal crisis, building new multi-million dollar prisons is hardly a justifiable proposition. Contributing to a capacity crisis by passing federal legislation that will further compound overcrowding in our penal institutions when the consequences will continue to be catastrophic is also untenable and morally reprehensible, particularly when we know that these measures will not reduce 'crime'.
Earlier this week, Stockwell Day - President of the Treasury Board of Canada - announced "that cash awards will be given to public service employees with a creative and practical idea that leads to tangible savings and improved services to Canadians" (read here). While the Employee Innovation Program does not appear to include individuals who work for the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC), it does not mean that staff from this agency cannot take the initiative and put forward proposals on how to save Canadian taxpayers money while delivering better results.
Given that CSC's budget is projected to rise by $466.2 million (or 18.9 percent) from 2010-2011 to 2011-2012 and another 201.8 million (or 6.9 percent) from 2011-2012 to 2012-2013, perhaps officials could begin to "embark upon our road to deficit reduction... essential for the government to live within its means and identify substantial savings" set-out by Stockwell Day. This plan could involve a federal punishment legislation moratorium, reversing sentencing laws that have been passed since 2006, and making investments in education, employment and affordable housing that are proven to prevent 'crime' while saving taxpayer dollars.
Saturday, June 12, 2010
Why Ontario Prisoners Should Get HST Cheques
In a story published today in the Toronto Star by Robert Benzie (read here), it is revealed that "[a]lmost 1,200 convicted criminals in Ontario jails will be receiving more than $550,000 in "transition" cheques to offset the pinch of the 13 per cent harmonized sales tax". It should be noted that only prisoners serving sentences of less than 90 days have been deemed eligible for this payment. Other eligibility requirements include having "filed a 2009 income tax and benefit return for the June 2010 and December 2010 payments, and a 2010 return for the June 2011 payment".
In response to this so-called injustice, Ontario Conservative Leader Tim Hudak is calling for Premier Dalton McGuinty to strip these taxpayers on their HST cheques. Revenue Minister Wilkinson argues that these payments are designed "to help Ontarians cope with higher levies on goods and services such as gasoline, haircuts, home heating fuels and electricity, and taxi fares".
Given that the approximately 1,200 prisoners who will receive HST cheques likely have to contribute to the maintenance of a household - whether single or in a relationship (with or without children) - where they receive bills for many of the costs described above, they need the money just as much as anyone else. Add this to the fact that most prisoners serving these short sentences "are doing time for minor offences such as mischief to property, causing a disturbance in a public place, speeding and parking infractions" according to the Toronto Star, it could be argued that most of these individuals are in prison because they are unable to pay fines, signalling that poverty is an underlying cause of these criminalized acts.
Is it not enough that we punish the poor with prison time? Do we have to move beyond what this type of puinishment is intended to do - deprive liberty - to also punish these individuals economically? Have Canadians become so concerned with their pocketbooks and lacking of compassion in this time of fiscal austerity that they want to rob prisoners of funds that would help them maintain a household while incarcerated or would help them in their reintegration into society upon release from the slammer?
I, for one, believe that not only should these 1,200 prisoners get their HST cheques, we should expand eligibility to many more prisoners who pay for overpriced goods in prison canteens across the Province of Ontario and who could use this money to get back on their feet once they return among us. These funds have nothing to do with their criminalization, and thus should be kept as a separate issue because to conflate the two is to actually create the conditions in which 'crime' is more likely to occur down the road.
In response to this so-called injustice, Ontario Conservative Leader Tim Hudak is calling for Premier Dalton McGuinty to strip these taxpayers on their HST cheques. Revenue Minister Wilkinson argues that these payments are designed "to help Ontarians cope with higher levies on goods and services such as gasoline, haircuts, home heating fuels and electricity, and taxi fares".
Given that the approximately 1,200 prisoners who will receive HST cheques likely have to contribute to the maintenance of a household - whether single or in a relationship (with or without children) - where they receive bills for many of the costs described above, they need the money just as much as anyone else. Add this to the fact that most prisoners serving these short sentences "are doing time for minor offences such as mischief to property, causing a disturbance in a public place, speeding and parking infractions" according to the Toronto Star, it could be argued that most of these individuals are in prison because they are unable to pay fines, signalling that poverty is an underlying cause of these criminalized acts.
Is it not enough that we punish the poor with prison time? Do we have to move beyond what this type of puinishment is intended to do - deprive liberty - to also punish these individuals economically? Have Canadians become so concerned with their pocketbooks and lacking of compassion in this time of fiscal austerity that they want to rob prisoners of funds that would help them maintain a household while incarcerated or would help them in their reintegration into society upon release from the slammer?
I, for one, believe that not only should these 1,200 prisoners get their HST cheques, we should expand eligibility to many more prisoners who pay for overpriced goods in prison canteens across the Province of Ontario and who could use this money to get back on their feet once they return among us. These funds have nothing to do with their criminalization, and thus should be kept as a separate issue because to conflate the two is to actually create the conditions in which 'crime' is more likely to occur down the road.
Thursday, June 10, 2010
ICOPA SURVEY - Carceral Abolitionism / Reductionism in Canada: Views from the Frontlines of the Struggle
The Thirteenth International Conference on Penal Abolition (ICOPA) is taking place in Belfast from June 23 to 25, 2010.
During the event a session will be taking place entitled "International Perspectives" where conference participants from around the world will share their views regarding the challenges facing those wishing to reduce and / or abolish our reliance on incarceration as a response to complex issues facing our respective communities.
You are invited to take part in a survey (view here) that is meant to poll proponents of penal abolitionism and reductionism regarding their views of the struggle, alternatives to incarceration and the strategies being mobilized to resist mass imprisonment. The answers provided by respondents will be compiled and used for a presentation given by ICOPA participants from Canada on the state of the carceral in this country and related publications (e.g. blog posts).
Please note that respondents have the option of having their personal information posted alongside their responses in related presentations / publications (e.g. blog posts) or having their responses remain anonymous.
The deadline for filling-out the survey is June 17, 2010.
Follow the proceedings of the Thirteenth International Conference on Penal Abolition (June 23-25) by logging-on to Tracking the Politics of 'Crime' and Punishment.
For further information, please contact Justin Piché.
During the event a session will be taking place entitled "International Perspectives" where conference participants from around the world will share their views regarding the challenges facing those wishing to reduce and / or abolish our reliance on incarceration as a response to complex issues facing our respective communities.
You are invited to take part in a survey (view here) that is meant to poll proponents of penal abolitionism and reductionism regarding their views of the struggle, alternatives to incarceration and the strategies being mobilized to resist mass imprisonment. The answers provided by respondents will be compiled and used for a presentation given by ICOPA participants from Canada on the state of the carceral in this country and related publications (e.g. blog posts).
Please note that respondents have the option of having their personal information posted alongside their responses in related presentations / publications (e.g. blog posts) or having their responses remain anonymous.
The deadline for filling-out the survey is June 17, 2010.
Follow the proceedings of the Thirteenth International Conference on Penal Abolition (June 23-25) by logging-on to Tracking the Politics of 'Crime' and Punishment.
For further information, please contact Justin Piché.
Monday, June 7, 2010
NDP Throw Their Hat Into the Ring of Headline Justice
Today, MP Chris Charlton (Hamilton Mountain) of the NDP introduced a private members bill that would "prevent the payment of Canada Pension Plan survivor benefits to anyone convicted of spousal homicide" (see NDP press release). The basic premise of the bill is that a spouse or child who murders a pensioner should not be eligible to obtain the "one-time death benefit and an on-going survivor pension".
While this piece of legislation will appear reasonable to most Canadians at first glance, the absence of key details concerning this "loophole that must be closed", according to Charlton, places this bill in the category of headline justice - at least for now.
For instance, do we know how many individuals have obtained the CPP death and / or survivor benefits when they have been convicted of murder? Should the answer be zero, than the NDP is chasing a phantom menace. One must also ask whether this 'loophole' will be closed to individuals who have spent a lifetime being abused by a family member who they killed to end their pain and suffering in a moment of distress or perceived danger. If this is the case, an examination of what it means to be fair needs to be placed in context, which cannot happen if discretion is removed from the administration of government.
As we near close to voting on Bill C-391 - An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Firearms Act (repeal of long-gun registry) - introduced by Conservative MP Candace Hoeppner, one cannot help but wonder whether the NDP is trying to distract Canadians from the fact that its members hold the power to abolish or keep the long-gun registry. Perhaps the New Democrats should focus their attention on discussing the merits and limitations of this registry with Canadians before they decide its fate.
While this piece of legislation will appear reasonable to most Canadians at first glance, the absence of key details concerning this "loophole that must be closed", according to Charlton, places this bill in the category of headline justice - at least for now.
For instance, do we know how many individuals have obtained the CPP death and / or survivor benefits when they have been convicted of murder? Should the answer be zero, than the NDP is chasing a phantom menace. One must also ask whether this 'loophole' will be closed to individuals who have spent a lifetime being abused by a family member who they killed to end their pain and suffering in a moment of distress or perceived danger. If this is the case, an examination of what it means to be fair needs to be placed in context, which cannot happen if discretion is removed from the administration of government.
As we near close to voting on Bill C-391 - An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Firearms Act (repeal of long-gun registry) - introduced by Conservative MP Candace Hoeppner, one cannot help but wonder whether the NDP is trying to distract Canadians from the fact that its members hold the power to abolish or keep the long-gun registry. Perhaps the New Democrats should focus their attention on discussing the merits and limitations of this registry with Canadians before they decide its fate.
Sunday, June 6, 2010
Response from the Canadian Taxpayers Federation
On 1 June 2010 I offered to send a copy of the report I submitted to the Federal-Provincial-Territorial Heads of Corrections last month to Kevin Gaudet, the Federal Director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation (CTF) (read here). In this letter, I also encouraged the CTF to direct their efforts towards encouraging the Government of Canada to provide a price tag for implementing their proposed punishment agenda, instead of focussing so much of their attention on eliminating pensions for prisoners.
While I will not post Gaudet's response, I will note that he vigorously disagreed with some of the assertions made in my letter (e.g. the potential of the bill not surviving a Charter challenge) and recommended that I should hide my "political bias" in the future. He did, however, ask for a copy of the report.
In response to his e-mail, I provided him with a copy of the report, addressed his critiques - emphasizing that I am non-partisan in my critiques of proponents of punishment legislation (i.e. I critique anyone who promotes ineffective, costly and repressive legislation) - and again offered to present my findings to the CTF in the future.
When assessing the merits of legislation, political debate and discussion is necessary. Often such discussions do not occur. Moving forward, I will do my part as a researcher working in a publicly-funded institution conducting research on issues of public interest, and present my findings to any group - no matter their place along the political spectrum - willing to invite me as long as time and resources permit.
While I will not post Gaudet's response, I will note that he vigorously disagreed with some of the assertions made in my letter (e.g. the potential of the bill not surviving a Charter challenge) and recommended that I should hide my "political bias" in the future. He did, however, ask for a copy of the report.
In response to his e-mail, I provided him with a copy of the report, addressed his critiques - emphasizing that I am non-partisan in my critiques of proponents of punishment legislation (i.e. I critique anyone who promotes ineffective, costly and repressive legislation) - and again offered to present my findings to the CTF in the future.
When assessing the merits of legislation, political debate and discussion is necessary. Often such discussions do not occur. Moving forward, I will do my part as a researcher working in a publicly-funded institution conducting research on issues of public interest, and present my findings to any group - no matter their place along the political spectrum - willing to invite me as long as time and resources permit.
Annual Releases from CSC (2004-2005 to 2009-2010)
In the last session of Parliament, the minority Conservative Government of Canada began to move towards the elimination of Accelerated Parole Review and Statutory Release in the federal penitentiary system (see Bill C-43, Bill C-53). These bills never passed as a result of prorogation.
Below, are the number of annual releases for the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) from 2004-2005 and 2009-2010. Of particular interest are the number of prisoners who leave penitentiaries on Statutory Release at two-thirds of their sentences. Keeping in mind that in 2007-2008 it cost an average of $108,974.40 to incarcerate a federal prisoner inside a penitentiary versus $24,825 in the community, the abolishment of this sentencing provision alone would significantly increase the federal prisoner population and associated costs.
2004-2005
Day Parole = 2,348
Full Parole = 404
Statutory Release = 3,836
Statutory Release with Residency = 1,256
Warrant Expiry = 212
TOTAL = 8,056
2005-2006
Day Parole = 2,466
Full Parole = 396
Statutory Release = 3,927
Statutory Release with Residency = 1,290
Warrant Expiry = 204
TOTAL = 8,285
2006-2007
Day Parole = 2,379
Full Parole = 403
Statutory Release = 3,911
Statutory Release with Residency = 1,339
Warrant Expiry = 206
TOTAL = 8,288
2007-2008
Day Parole = 2,492
Full Parole = 400
Statutory Release = 4,152
Statutory Release with Residency = 1,335
Warrant Expiry = 178
TOTAL = 8,557
2008-2009
Day Parole = 2,332
Full Parole = 378
Statutory Release = 4,156
Statutory Release with Residency = 1,610
Warrant Expiry = 176
TOTAL = 8,652
2009-2010
Day Parole = 2,139
Full Parole = 177
Statutory Release = 5,553
Warrant Expiry = 198
TOTAL = 8,067
Sources
Correctional Service of Canada (2009). "Annual Releases from CSC from 2004/2005 to 2008/2009", Ottawa - obtained from federal Access to Information requests A-2009-00106 and A-2009-00107.
Correctional Service of Canada (2010). "Annual Releases of Offenders from CSC for FY 2009-2010", Ottawa - obtained from federal Access to Information request A-2010-00042.
Below, are the number of annual releases for the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) from 2004-2005 and 2009-2010. Of particular interest are the number of prisoners who leave penitentiaries on Statutory Release at two-thirds of their sentences. Keeping in mind that in 2007-2008 it cost an average of $108,974.40 to incarcerate a federal prisoner inside a penitentiary versus $24,825 in the community, the abolishment of this sentencing provision alone would significantly increase the federal prisoner population and associated costs.
2004-2005
Day Parole = 2,348
Full Parole = 404
Statutory Release = 3,836
Statutory Release with Residency = 1,256
Warrant Expiry = 212
TOTAL = 8,056
2005-2006
Day Parole = 2,466
Full Parole = 396
Statutory Release = 3,927
Statutory Release with Residency = 1,290
Warrant Expiry = 204
TOTAL = 8,285
2006-2007
Day Parole = 2,379
Full Parole = 403
Statutory Release = 3,911
Statutory Release with Residency = 1,339
Warrant Expiry = 206
TOTAL = 8,288
2007-2008
Day Parole = 2,492
Full Parole = 400
Statutory Release = 4,152
Statutory Release with Residency = 1,335
Warrant Expiry = 178
TOTAL = 8,557
2008-2009
Day Parole = 2,332
Full Parole = 378
Statutory Release = 4,156
Statutory Release with Residency = 1,610
Warrant Expiry = 176
TOTAL = 8,652
2009-2010
Day Parole = 2,139
Full Parole = 177
Statutory Release = 5,553
Warrant Expiry = 198
TOTAL = 8,067
Sources
Correctional Service of Canada (2009). "Annual Releases from CSC from 2004/2005 to 2008/2009", Ottawa - obtained from federal Access to Information requests A-2009-00106 and A-2009-00107.
Correctional Service of Canada (2010). "Annual Releases of Offenders from CSC for FY 2009-2010", Ottawa - obtained from federal Access to Information request A-2010-00042.
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
My Offer to the Canadian Taxpayers Federation
Dear Kevin Gaudet (federal.director@taxpayer.com),
My name is Justin Piché and I am a PhD Candidate in Sociology at Carleton University. My current research examines the scope and factors contributing to prison construction in Canada at this time. Findings of relevance to your group, the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, are those that pertain to the costs of building and operating these new facilities.
In a context of declining police-reported 'crime' rates and a fiscal crisis, the provinces and territories are in the process of establishing 22 new prisons as well as 16 additions to existing facilities. The price tag for construction alone is currently estimated to be over $2.8 billion. Using figures from the Canadian Centre on Justice Statistics, I have also estimated that it will cost $343.9 million per year to operate the 6,500+ new prisoner beds once the new facilities come online. Upon request, I can send you a report I submitted and presented to the Provincial-Territorial Heads of Corrections last month (read presentation notes).
Based on the Government of Canada's own figures, we know that the overall budget of the federal penitentiary system has risen 54 percent to $2.46 billion since the Liberals tabled their last budget in 2005-2006 and is set to increase by 95.9 percent to $3.128 billion by 2012-2013. The Correctional Service of Canada's (CSC) budget for capital expenditures, which includes facility construction costs, has also increased by 138.4 percent to $329.4 million since the Conservatives have taken office and is set to rise by 237.8 percent to $466.9 million by 2012-2013. Where other federal government departments are trimming staff, the number of CSC full-time equivalent employees has risen by 11.9 percent to 16,587 since the Conservatives have taken office and is set to increase by 39.6 percent to 20,706 by 2012-2013.
It should be noted that the figures above are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the costs of the Conservative punishment agenda. Consider media reports that suggest that the Parliamentary Budget Officer has calculated that it will costs between $6 and $10 billion to build prisons to absord the influx of new prisoners who will no longer get 2 or 3 days credit for every day served in remand due to prison overcrowding and poor facility conditions. This does not even include the costs associated with the operations and management of these institutions. Further, this is only the partial price tag for implementing one bill. With many more bills already or in the process of being passed, our Minister of Public Safety Vic Toews would "rather not share" the cost figures associated with these bills with Canadians.
In the past few months, your organization has focussed their attention on reducing the costs of Canada's penitentiary system by focussing on Old-Age Security and Guarenteed Income Supplements for prisoners above the age of 65. According to an article written by Janice Tibbetts (read here), the savings associated with eliminating these entitlements for prisoners could be as much as $14 million per year.
While there are doubts whether this new law would withstand a Charter challenge, I would suggest that all this focus on prisoner pensions is a distraction from the much larger costs associated with the Government of Canada's punishment agenda. As we move towards mass incarceration as our penal policy model, I would strongly encourage the Canadian Taxpayers Federation to examine what value-for-money Canadians will be getting for increasing our country's reliance on incarceration - an approach that is being abandonned on mass south of the border for reasons of finances and ineffectiveness.
Empirical research has shown that building more prisons and imprisoning more people is not an effective approach to dealing with the complex harms and conflicts in our communities that we call 'crime'. Empirical research has also shown that this approach is not cost effective, and it is not because prisoners eat three meals a day or due to the fact that some prisoners have bought TV's and radios with their own money for their cells that incarceration is expensive (see the costs associated with staffing and security).
If you would like me to present my research findings to your group, I would certainly accept your invitation. Since you have their ear, I would recommend that you pressure the Government of Canada to reveal the figures of their punishment agenda in the interim. Canadians have a right to know.
Looking forward to hearing from you,
Justin Piché
PhD Candidate (Sociology)
Carleton University
My name is Justin Piché and I am a PhD Candidate in Sociology at Carleton University. My current research examines the scope and factors contributing to prison construction in Canada at this time. Findings of relevance to your group, the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, are those that pertain to the costs of building and operating these new facilities.
In a context of declining police-reported 'crime' rates and a fiscal crisis, the provinces and territories are in the process of establishing 22 new prisons as well as 16 additions to existing facilities. The price tag for construction alone is currently estimated to be over $2.8 billion. Using figures from the Canadian Centre on Justice Statistics, I have also estimated that it will cost $343.9 million per year to operate the 6,500+ new prisoner beds once the new facilities come online. Upon request, I can send you a report I submitted and presented to the Provincial-Territorial Heads of Corrections last month (read presentation notes).
Based on the Government of Canada's own figures, we know that the overall budget of the federal penitentiary system has risen 54 percent to $2.46 billion since the Liberals tabled their last budget in 2005-2006 and is set to increase by 95.9 percent to $3.128 billion by 2012-2013. The Correctional Service of Canada's (CSC) budget for capital expenditures, which includes facility construction costs, has also increased by 138.4 percent to $329.4 million since the Conservatives have taken office and is set to rise by 237.8 percent to $466.9 million by 2012-2013. Where other federal government departments are trimming staff, the number of CSC full-time equivalent employees has risen by 11.9 percent to 16,587 since the Conservatives have taken office and is set to increase by 39.6 percent to 20,706 by 2012-2013.
It should be noted that the figures above are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the costs of the Conservative punishment agenda. Consider media reports that suggest that the Parliamentary Budget Officer has calculated that it will costs between $6 and $10 billion to build prisons to absord the influx of new prisoners who will no longer get 2 or 3 days credit for every day served in remand due to prison overcrowding and poor facility conditions. This does not even include the costs associated with the operations and management of these institutions. Further, this is only the partial price tag for implementing one bill. With many more bills already or in the process of being passed, our Minister of Public Safety Vic Toews would "rather not share" the cost figures associated with these bills with Canadians.
In the past few months, your organization has focussed their attention on reducing the costs of Canada's penitentiary system by focussing on Old-Age Security and Guarenteed Income Supplements for prisoners above the age of 65. According to an article written by Janice Tibbetts (read here), the savings associated with eliminating these entitlements for prisoners could be as much as $14 million per year.
While there are doubts whether this new law would withstand a Charter challenge, I would suggest that all this focus on prisoner pensions is a distraction from the much larger costs associated with the Government of Canada's punishment agenda. As we move towards mass incarceration as our penal policy model, I would strongly encourage the Canadian Taxpayers Federation to examine what value-for-money Canadians will be getting for increasing our country's reliance on incarceration - an approach that is being abandonned on mass south of the border for reasons of finances and ineffectiveness.
Empirical research has shown that building more prisons and imprisoning more people is not an effective approach to dealing with the complex harms and conflicts in our communities that we call 'crime'. Empirical research has also shown that this approach is not cost effective, and it is not because prisoners eat three meals a day or due to the fact that some prisoners have bought TV's and radios with their own money for their cells that incarceration is expensive (see the costs associated with staffing and security).
If you would like me to present my research findings to your group, I would certainly accept your invitation. Since you have their ear, I would recommend that you pressure the Government of Canada to reveal the figures of their punishment agenda in the interim. Canadians have a right to know.
Looking forward to hearing from you,
Justin Piché
PhD Candidate (Sociology)
Carleton University
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)