If Your Narrative Does Not Fit, You Must Exit

During his last months in office as the first Ombudsman for Victims' of Crime, Steve Sullivan began to speak out against the Conservative punishment agenda that was leading to a drastic increase in the expenditures of the Correctional Service of Canada (see 6 April 2010 post). In the months since, the exit of other ombudsmen and heads of federal government departments who have not parroted the federal government's talking points has been widely reported.

Last week, Evan Solomon from CBC's Power & Politics invited Paul Kennedy (former head of the RCMP's Public Complaints Commission), Linda Keen (former President of Nuclear Safety Commission) and Steve Sullivan to discuss their views regarding this trend (watch here). For his part, Sullivan responded:

I think for my particular case, we were not overly critical of the government, but we weren't part of their narrative. Their narrative for understanding victims of crime is that the way to serve victims of crime is to punish offenders. We weren't a part of that narrative. We were bringing forward other issues that we were hearing from victims and it wasn't part of what the government believed. I think that's part of it. If we had been a cheerleader for the government's agenda, we might have a different situation.

Later in the segment, the panellists were asked by Solomon to discuss their take on the war the minority Conservative Government of Canada is waging on expertise:

It's their overall approach to people who have expertise. I think we were all appointed because the government felt, at the time anyways, that we had expertise. You look at the Minister's response to the gun registry report... it doesn't matter what it says. It doesn't matter what his own police service says about how effective the registry is... it doesn't matter because they've made up their mind and that's the problem. You bring experts because they have expertise. We know more about these topics than our ministers do. But it doesn't matter what we say if it's not part of their narrative.

In other words: if your narrative does not fit, you must exit.

This is government 'accountability' in action.

Questions I Have Regarding CSC's E-mail on "Institutional Enhancements" at Springhill Institution

Below is an e-mail circulated by a CSC official announcing "institutional enhancements" at Springhill Institution. In brackets [] I have added my comments and questions that arose as I read this notice.

---

Institutional Enhancements at Springhill Institution

Dear stakeholders and partners,

I would like to share with you information provided by Commissioner Don Head regarding the recent announcement about Institutional Enhancements at Springhill Institution:


The Honourable Peter MacKay, Minister of National Defence and Member of Parliament for Central Nova, and Scott Armstrong, Member of Parliament for Cumberland-Colchester-Musquodoboit Valley, on behalf of the Honourable Vic Toews, Minister of Public Safety announced earlier this week that the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) will spend $40 million to increase capacity within Springhill Institution. This announcement made at Springhill Institution is the first of many investments that will mean greater public safety for the people of Canada.


[Questions: Why was Springhill Institution, a facility opened in 1967, chosen as one of the CSC facilities to be expanded (read 18 August 2010 post)? What criteria was used and what process was undertaken to select this site (read 6 August 2010 post)? Further, given that the federal government is deciding to increase our reliance on incarceration, what evidence do they have that such an approach will enhance safety in our communities?]

CSC is making efforts to ensure it is well positioned to respond to the recent changes in legislation. The expectation is that there will be a significant increase of offenders, especially over the next three years. Our current analysis shows that the federal offender population will increase by approximately 3,400 inmates by 2013 as a direct result of the Truth in Sentencing Act, and by more than 300 inmates by 2014 as a result of the Tackling Violent Crime Act. More specifically for Springhill Institution this will involve the construction of 192 beds.


[Questions: Given that CSC has recently suspended its accommodation policy to allow for more double bunking, is the organization really well positioned to absorb an influx of new prisoners resulting from the Conservatives punishment agenda (read 11 August 2010 post)? Also, there exists a discrepancy between the Parliamentary Budget Office's projections of the prison population and related costs, which are outlined in a report released to the public for scrutiny and debate, and CSC's numbers (read 22 June 2010 post). Will CSC release their analysis and methodology so that Canadians can understand how the organization arrived at its figures?]

There will be an increase in shared accommodation and the addition of over 2,700 spaces across our institutions over the next three years to handle the population growth. The construction of these new living units will also mean construction jobs for the local community, and new hiring at the facility where the units are ready to be staffed. This is an important part of ensuring tangible economic growth for the communities located around our institutions.

[Has CSC undertaken a review of the impacts of establishing new facilities or expanding existing institutions on host communities to substantiate their claim that their expansion agenda will ensure "tangible economic growth" (read 12 May 2010 post)? If so, can the report be released to Canadians who are bankrolling these initiatives? If not, on what basis is CSC making these claims?]

CSC will be positioned to meet the challenge and build on our effective corrections expertise and is implementing a multi-faceted accommodation strategy to address the increase of the offender population. The Government of Canada is also committed to providing CSC with the tools and infrastructure it needs to manage a complex and diverse offender population. Providing adequate accommodation for a growing offender population will help ensure safer communities and safer institutional environments.


[Given that CSC is not well-positioned to provide prisoners with timely programming as it stands, how does increasing the prison population lead to an enhancement in the effectiveness of the organization (read the 2008-2009 Annual Report of the Correctional Investigator of Canada)?]

* The name, position and contact information of the public servant who drafted this e-mail has been withheld to protect privacy.

64.7% of CSC Facility Expansions in Conservative Ridings: A Case of Penal Patronage?

In a 1 August 2010 blog post (read here), I noted that federal Cabinet Minister Jean-Pierre Blackburn was among Conservative MPs who have reportedly lobbied for the construction of a new penitentiary in their ridings. In response to Blackburn's query, Minister of Public Safety Vic Toews stated that there were no immediate plans to build new penitentiaries and that, in the short-term, the government was looking to expand existing facilities.

The contents of this statement would surely be music to the ears of MPs, such as Tilly O'Neill-Gordon, who was asked by the Government of New Brunswick to lobby for the expansion of Atlantic Institution, located in her riding of Miramichi, to create jobs in the economically repressed area (read here). Of greater importance would be the news, broke by Rob Tripp of the Kingston Whig Standard, that the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) had developed a list of penitentiaries it would expand (read story), which included Atlantic Institution (see list here). The question remains: how were the sites selected for these facility expansions?

At this stage, we do not know. One reason is that the CSC does not even acknowledge the existence of the document obtained by Tripp (read here), despite the journalist's insistence that his source is reliable. A second reason is that Minister Toews has also yet to specify which facilities will be expanded. Such stonewalling - which have become a hallmark of this government - arguably does not work in favour of CSC nor their political masters, and I would suggest that it would be beneficial for both parties to release documentation that outlines the criteria used and process undertaken to select the sites for these expansions. This exercise should also be repeated when plans for new penitentiaries are in the process of being developed - that is if transparency in government is an ideal worth adhering to in a democratic society such as Canada.

In the 2007 CSC Review Panel, the authors noted that many federal penitentiaries had outlived their life-cycles and were not equipped to meet current needs of the Service (see page 154). The report also quoted Irving Kulik, Executive Director of the Canadian Criminal Justice Association, stating that "[o]ld facilities are expensive to maintain and so when other budgetary considerations come into play, maintenance is delayed. Inevitably the organization has a huge collection of decaying buildings incorporating elements of new construction in an inefficient fashion" (ibid).

Based on these considerations and others, the panellists recommended that CSC move towards building new regional complexes (recommendation 98, page 160) and "minimize authorization of retrofit projects" (recommendation 100, page 160). The logic behind these recommendations is that if new replacement penitentiaries are to be constructed at a later date - as has been indicated by CSC Commissioner Don Head (read 23 June 2010 post) - it does not make sense to pour money into aging prisons that are destined for closure.

With this in mind, one could assume that CSC would be expanding facilities that have come online recently, rather than penitentiaries that have been in operation for over three decades. Surprisingly, 22 of the 34 institutions being expanded were opened before 1980 (see table below) including: Frontenac, Pittsburgh, Bath, Beaver Creek, Collins Bay, Springhill, Westmorland, Montée Saint-François, La Macaza, Sainte-Anne-des-Plaines, Cowansville, Federal Training Centre, Rockwood, Bowden (annex), Bowden, Riverbend, Drumheller, Edmonton, Pacific, Kent, Ferndale and William Head.

This being the case, it is clear that the CSC Review Panel recommendations are not being followed, which is likely because the panellists never factored in a rapid increase in new prisoners that is projected to accompany federal punishment legislation. This has placed CSC in the position of pursuing both expansions to their 'outmoded' facilities in the short-term and the construction of new institutions in the long-term. In the process, taxpayer dollars are being consumed with the knowledge that CSC is pouring money down the drain.

A second explanation for the selection of sites for facility expansions is penal patronage - a means to generate political capital for the current government through the promise of economic stimulus in the form of construction and prison jobs. One indicator that may signal that the Government of Canada has become involved in the penitentiary expansion siting process would be a disproportionate amount of these initiatives being located in the ruling party's riding. Following this trail, I have determined that while 31 of the 54 total institutions listed on CSC's website (57 percent) are located in Conservative ridings, 22 of the 34 CSC institution expansion projects (64.7 percent) are set to break ground in Tory constituencies (see below).

It should also be noted that some of these projects are taking place in key battle grounds where Liberals are currently in office. In the riding of Kingston, where Peter Milliken is set to retire, three projects are set to take place on the grounds of the aging Frontenac (38 years old), Pittsburgh (47 years old) and Collins Bay (80 years old) institutions. Milliken won the riding of Kingston and the Islands in the 2008 federal election by 6.6 percent over Conservative candidate Brian Abrams, who gained an additional 6.5 percent of the vote for the party in the riding since the 2006 federal election (see results here).

Across the country, new construction is set to take place at William Head Institution - a 51 year old facility - located in the riding of Esquimault-Juan-de-Fuca held by Liberal Keith Martin who narrowly beat Conservative candidate Troy DeSouza by 0.11 percent in the 2008 federal election (see results here).

To many, these developments would suggest that the minority Conservative Government of Canada is involved in the politics of penal patronage. Such commentators could point to the multi-million dollar campaign style funding announcements made by the likes of Peter McKay and Scott Armstrong (see here), both Conservative MPs, as evidence of this phenomenon.

I, however, will withhold judgement at this time. What I wish to bring attention to is the fact that during this process, CSC officials and their political masters have not disclosed how they are selecting sites for federal penitentiary construction initiatives. We are also left wondering to what extent, if any, the communities that will be impacted were consulted during the selection process (read 6 August 2010 post).

There is also a need to have a conversation about whether expanding and building prisons does contribute to the well-being of host communities as recent scholarship in the United States has shown that the economic benefits of using imprisonment as a means to revitalize local economies is limited, if not negligible because they deter the establishment of other industries (read 12 May 2010 post).

We also have to remember that, unlike other businesses, prisons are funded by taxpayers. So while Jane and Joe publics in towns like Springhill, Nova Scotia may be able to get jobs as a result of the punishment agenda, this simply represents an exercise in taxpayer-funded equalization. Moreover, this approach to 'crime'-control and economic development is transforming prisoners into commodities from which communities are said to be able to profit, which provides an incentive to further expand the use of incarceration. One only has to look south of the border to see that such measures will do nothing to enhance safety in our communities in the long-term or meet the needs of all those - victims, prisoners and others - impacted by the complex conflicts and harms in our neighbourhoods that we call 'crime'.

But hey, at least someone will make a buck pulled straight from your wallet.

Correctional Service of Canada Facilities and Members of Parliament (current)

ATLANTIC REGION

Atlantic Institution (1987) - Tilly O'Neill-Gordon (Cons.) - EXPANSION

Dorchester Penitentiary (1880) - Dominic Leblanc (Lib.)

Nova Institution for Women (1995) - Scott Armstrong (Cons.) - EXPANSION

Shepody Healing Centre (2001) - Dominic Leblanc (Lib.)

Springhill Institution (1967) - Scott Armstrong (Cons.) - EXPANSION

Westmorland Institution (1975) - Dominic Leblanc (Lib.) - EXPANSION

QUÉBEC REGION

Archambault Institution (1969) - Diane Bourgeois (Bloc)

Cowansville Institution (1966) - Christian Ouellet (Bloc) - EXPANSION

Donnacona Institution (1986) - André Arthur (Ind.) - EXPANSION

Drummond Institution (1984) - Roger Pomerleau (Bloc)

Federal Training Centre (1952) - Robert Carrier (Bloc) - EXPANSION

Joliette Institution (1997) - Pierre Paquette (Bloc) - EXPANSION

La Macaza Institution (1978) - Johanne Deschamps (Bloc) - EXPANSION

Leclerc Institution (1961) - Robert Carrier (Bloc)

Montée St.-Françis Institution (mid-1960s) - Robert Carrier (Bloc) - EXPANSION

Port-Cartier Institution (1988) - Gérard Asselin (Bloc)

Regional Mental Health Centre (unknown) - Diane Bourgeois (Bloc)

Regional Reception Centre (1973) - Diane Bourgeois (Bloc)

Sainte-Anne-des-Plaines Institution (1968) - Diane Bourgeois (Bloc) - EXPANSION

ONTARIO REGION

Bath Institution (1972) - Scott Reid (Cons.) - EXPANSION

Beaver Creek Institution (1961) - Tony Clement (Cons.) - EXPANSION

Collins Bay Institution (1930) - Peter Milliken (Lib.) - EXPANSION

Fenbrook Institution (1998) - Tony Clement (Cons.) - EXPANSION

Frontenac Institution (1972) - Peter Milliken (Lib.) - EXPANSION

Grand Valley Institution for Women (1997) - Harold Albrecht (Cons.) - EXPANSION

Joyceville Institution (1959) - Peter Milliken (Lib.)

Kingston Penitentiary (1835) - Peter Milliken (Lib.)

Millhaven Institution (1971) - Scott Reid (Cons.)

Pittsburgh Institution (1963) - Peter Milliken (Lib.) - EXPANSION

Regional Treatment Centre (1959) - Peter Milliken (Lib.)

Warkworth Institution (1967) - Rick Norlock (Cons.)

PRAIRIE REGION

Bowden Institution and Annex (1974) - Earl Dreeshen (Cons.) - 2 EXPANSIONS

Drumheller Institution and Annex (1967) - Kevin Sorenson (Cons.) - EXPANSION

Edmonton Institution (1978) - Tim Uppal (Cons.) - EXPANSION

Edmonton Institution for Women (1995) - Rona Ambrose (Cons.) - EXPANSION

Grande Cache Institution (1995) - Rob Merrifield (Cons.)

Grierson Centre (1998) - Peter Goldring (Cons.)

Okimaw Ohci Healing Lodge (1995) - David Anderson (Cons.) - EXPANSION

Pê Sâkâstêw Centre (1997) - Blaine Calkins (Cons.) - EXPANSION

Regional Psychiatric Centre (1978) - Bradley Trost (Cons.)

Riverbend Institution (1962)- Randy Hoback (Cons.) - EXPANSION

Rockwood Institution (1962) - James Bezan (Cons.) - EXPANSION

Saskatchewan Penitentiary (1911) - Randy Hoback (Cons.)

Stony Mountain Institution (1877) - James Bezan (Cons.)

Willow Cree Healing Centre (unknown) - Maurice Vellacott (Cons.) - EXPANSION

PACIFIC REGION

Fraser Valley Institution for Women (2004) - Ed Fast (Cons.) - EXPANSION

Ferndale Institution (1973) - Randy Kamp (Cons.) - EXPANSION

Kent Institution (1979) - Chuck Strahl (Cons.) - EXPANSION

Kwikwèxwelhp Healing Village (2001) - Chuck Strahl (Cons.)

Matsqui Institution (1966) - Ed Fast (Cons.)

Mission Institution (1997) - Randy Kamp (Cons.) - EXPANSION

Mountain Institution (1962) - Chuck Strahl (Cons.)

Pacific Institution / Regional Treatment Centre (1972) - Ed Fast (Cons.)

William Head Institution (1959) - Keith Martin (Lib.) - EXPANSION

Is More Double Bunking in DSC Penitentiaries Inevitable?

Just one day ago, Canadians inside our prisons and outside in our communities united to reflect upon deaths in custody and other prison justice issues (read about community events). In Ottawa, much of the discussion on Prison Justice Day (PJD) focussed on the increase of double bunking in our federal penitentiaries which violates United Nations and Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) standards (watch here). For my part, I built on the arguments made by discussants on CBC's Power & Politics with Evan Solomon the previous night (view minutes 16:00 to 31:35) who warned that an increase in the use of double bunking could lead to more deaths in custody, and would certainly strain the resources of a system that already has waiting lists for health and mental health services, as well as for programs a prisoner is mandated to complete should he or she want to expedite their release from prison (also read presentation notes).

Tonight on Power & Politics, Evan Solomon released a three-page CSC policy bulletin dated today, 11 August 2010 (read here), obtained by CBC (view minutes 52:08 to 55:00). The document begins with the following statement:

Inmate Accommodation identifies single accommodation as the most desirable and appropriate method of housing offenders. The current policy reflects CSC's belief that double bunking (one cell designed for one inmate occupied by two) is inappropriate as a permanent accommodation measure within the context of good corrections.

What did these words translate into? Were we about to read that one or more CSC officials were going to resign à la Dr. Munir Sheikh based on this principle because both the Minister of Public Safety Vic Toews (read 18 March 2010 post) and CSC Commissioner Don Head (read 23 June 2010 post) announced in recent months that double-bunking would be increased to absorb the influx of new prisoners serving longer sentences with fewer chances of release?

With the lives of their colleagues and prisoners at stake, no such words were written. Instead, the path followed was one of penal pragmatism, to accept that the runaway train - that is the minority Conservative Government of Canada's penal policy approach - has left the station and the only thing to do was to brace our prisons for the explosion that will occur when the locomotive derails.

Against their own principles and word, now worth nothing more than the three pieces of paper that made it to the desk of Evan Solomon at some point before his show aired today, the Detention Services of Canada (DSC) - to play on the words of Giorgio Agamben (2005) in his book State of Exception - normalized the exceptional practice of double-bunking and rendered the temporary into the permanent for the foreseeable future.

The policy bulletin reads:

...forecasted increases resulting from the passing of Bill C-2, the Tackling Violent Crime Act, and Bill C-25, the Truth in Sentencing Act, and normal growth projections will exert significant pressure on current capacities to accommodate inmates. Even with proposed accommodation identified in CSC's annual plans the Service will be forced to increase the measures typically reserved for short term capacity shortfalls.

In order to streamline and assist operational units to react quickly as the population grows, the process described in paragraph 29 of CD 550, which requires prior approval by the Commissioner before increasing the number of double bunked cells, has been suspended.

What does this mean in practice? As noted in the policy bulletin, Institutional Heads (a.k.a. Wardens) will no longer have to ask permission from the DSC Commissioner to increase the levels of double bunking in the facilities they manage. The authority to allow double bunking increases has been delegated to DSC's Assistant Deputy Commissioner of Institutional Operations and the Deputy Commissioners in each of DSC's five operational regions.

The policy bulletin also notes that "[d]ouble bunk capacity will NOT exceed 20% of the overall regional rated capacity", yet in the next sentence states that "[a]ny increase above that level will require Commissioner's approval" - a contradictory statement if I've ever read one. At least the buck will stop somewhere after 1 in 5 federal prison cells are stuffed with two prisoners... oh, wait a minute.

On the final page, under "Expected costs?" it states: "[t]here maybe increased costs due to additional double bunking at sites... [t]here may be increased inter-regional and intra-regional inmate transfer activity". As for the "Other impacts?", "N/A" - which either means not applicable or not available.

Although I was shocked when I read about how DSC was going about ignoring its' own Commissioner's Directive, the passages above were even more shocking to me. As a student of public policy, I was taught in classes that if I ever got in the position of making policy I was to CONSULT, EVALUATE, DECIDE, IMPLEMENT and REFINE. I was taught to consult the stakeholders to develop policy options, evaluate the feasibility of each option and then make a decision with information guiding the entreprise. After all, my actions would have consequences and it is best to be prudent.

In this case, it appears as though Toews received advice from the Senior Deputy Commissioner of CSC (now DSC) on 16 February 2010 that a "[f]urther increase in double bunking places significant stress on the staff and infrastructure of an institution" and "[f]urther expansion of double bunking increases the risk to staff and offender safety in an institution", and decided to conjure up his own policy direction and asked his detention service employees to make it happen. The path taken by Toews - DECIDE, ANNOUNCE, DEFEND - is indicative of other Government of Canada blunders over the past year where senior public servants and other informed observers were ignored.

But is more double bunking in DSC penitentiaries inevitable? The answer is no. There is always an opportunity to change paths. No, I am not suggesting we build new penitentiaries. When a sink is full of water running from the tap and the sink begins to overflow, I do not rush to the hardware store to buy a new sink or a bigger sink. I turn the tap off. I pull the drain. I advocate for a federal punishment legislation moratorium and the pursuit of meaningful alternatives that are proven to address 'crime' (sign the Canadian Punishment Legislation Moratorium).

There is a capacity crisis in our federal penitentiaries. It was created by the Parliamentarians and Senators who passed some of the Conservative punishment bills that have been tabled since 2006 in the context of a decline in the volume and severity of police-reported 'crime' rates, and a fiscal crisis. The consequences of playing politics with the lives of prisoners, many of which are trying to make positive changes in their lives while their necks are being stepped on by the merciless jack-boots of Canada's emerging penal state, are slowly becoming visible.

First out the door - our principles.

Second out the door - the lives of our daughters and sons, sisters and brothers, mothers and fathers.

But according to our government, there is nothing to worry about. After all, with each punishment bill passed and each prison bed filled, a 'victory' has been won. But a victory over what? A victory over whom? Ourselves? I should be celebrating because more of my fellow human beings are in prison? I should be thanking my government for not focussing the bulk of their attention on preventing and reducing victimization, and for diverting funds into the construction of more concrete boxes and calling this a solution to the complex harms and conflicts in our communities that we call 'crime'?

Not today. Not ever.

No one is disposable.

Prisons Kill

By Justin Piché

To be presented at the Ottawa Public Library (Main Branch) - Auditorium

Tuesday, August 10, 2010

12:00pm

[CHECK AGAINST DELIVERY]

Hi folks,

Thank you for coming.

Today we have four speakers, including Kim Pate (Executive Director, Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies), Susan Haines (Volunteer and Consultant), Michelle Mann (Lawyer and Consultant), and Guy Ritchie, an ex-prisoner. Each will focus their presentations on Prison Justice Day (PJD), deaths in custody and related prison justice issues. Excerpts from a piece written by Peter Collins, a federal prisoner, published in the Journal of Prisoners on Prisons will also be read. Following the presentations, we will open the floor for discussion.

Before we begin I would like to comment briefly on why we are here today.

Prison Justice Day (PJD) emerged as a prisoner-initiated day of non-violent strike action to commemorate the August 10, 1974 death of Eddie Nalon, who died alone in the segregation unit of Millhaven maximum-security penitentiary. It was first observed in 1975, and in 1976 the prisoners of Millhaven issued a communication “To All Prisoners and Concerned Peoples from across Canada”, calling for one-day hunger strikes in opposition to the use of solitary confinement and in support of prisoners’ rights, in memory of Eddie Nalon as well as Robert Landers, who also died alone in solitary confinement (see www.prisonjustice.ca).

In the last 35 years, individuals and groups on the outside have also used PJD as a day to bring attention to deaths in custody, as well as other prison justice issues such as facility overcrowding, mental health, the overrepresentation of Aboriginals in our penal institutions, and broader social justice issues in our communities.

This advocacy work continues today and will persist as long as there are prisons as promises to ‘reform’ these monuments to our collective failure to address the conflicts and harms in our communities that we call ‘crime’ either ring hallow or fail because you cannot transform the violence that is incarceration. Indeed, it is in the so-called softer and gentler Grand Valley Institution in Kitchener – one the facilities that replaced P4W – that prison staff failed to respond when Ashley Smith hung herself in solitary on October 19, 2007.

In letters obtained through Access to Information (ATI) sent by Public Safety Minister Vic Toews to a number of concerned citizens on the issue of deaths in custody (see copy of original following the text), he made the following remarks:

Let me start by saying that every death in custody represents a tragedy. The Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) is fully committed to implementing appropriate and effective measures to help prevent deaths in custody.

Following [redacted] death, CSC acted quickly to investigate, report on the circumstances surrounding the incident, identify weaknesses and take corrective action where necessary. This is a very complex matter that has reinforced the need for CSC to further strengthen its approaches to managing offenders, particularly those with serious behavioural and mental health concerns.

I feel it is important to mention that CSC did take corrective measures. An action plan has been developed to respond to recommendations of investigations into this incident, and CSC has already implemented a number of measures. If you would like additional details on the action taken, you may wish to consult CSC’s Web site at www.csc-scc.gc.ca. The action plan is updated on a quaterly basis.

Finally, it is important to note that CSC is working closely with the federal government’s recently established Mental Health Commission of Canada, which has been mandated to develop a national mental health strategy and share knowledge and best practices for the benefit of Canadians.

Based on the statement made by Minister Toews, one would assume that deaths in custody would be a thing of the past in our federal penitentiaries. However, in the years since death continues to be a central feature of incarceration with 25 occurring in 2007-2008, 65 in 2008-2009, and 40 in 2009-2010 according to figures compiled by the Office of the Correctional Investigator (see below). When looking at long-term trends, Howard Sapers has noted that one can expect between 50 and 60 deaths in Canadian federal penitentiaries in a ‘normal’ year.

Deaths in Custody:

CSC Facilities

2007-2008:

Unknown causes (n=1)

"Natural" causes (n=16)

Homicide (n=1)

Suicide (n=4)

Overdose (n=3)

2008-2009:

Unknown causes (n=5)

"Natural" causes (n=48)

Homicide (n=2)

Suicide (n=9)

Overdose (n=1)

2009-2010:

Unknown causes (n=7)

"Natural" causes (n=24)

Homicide (n=1)

Suicide (n=8)

Overdose (n=0)

While a significant percentage of these deaths are attributed to “natural” causes, it should be noted that there are a number of studies that have shown that the process of incarceration is emotionally, psychologically and physically damaging, and thus, contributes to the on-set or the exacerbation of health conditions. In the case of CSC institutions, the OIC has noted that the organization lacks the resources to adequately monitor the health of prisoners which can contribute to “natural” deaths in custody.

With a system that is already overstretched, the Conservative Party of Canada has embarked upon a legislative path that aims to place more people in our prisons for longer periods of time with fewer chances of release into the community. One means of coping with the influx of new prisoners deployed by the Government of Canada has been to increase double-bunking – the practice of placing two prisoners in a single prison cell.

When critiqued for adopting this approach, Minister Toews has stated that there “is not something that is inappropriate or illegal or unconstitutional or violates international standards". He has also insisted that the practice is “ humane” (see 18 March 2010 post).

Although it may be legal to double-bunk prisoners, the use of this practice does contravene the UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners which states:

9. (1) Where sleeping accommodation is in individual cells or rooms, each prisoner shall occupy by night a cell or room by himself. If for special reasons, such as temporary overcrowding, it becomes necessary for the central administration to make an exception to this rule, it is not desirable to have two prisoners in a cell or room.

The use of double-bunking is also at odds with CSC Commissioner's Directive 550 that states:

6. Single accommodation is the most desirable and correctionally appropriate method of housing offenders.

Despite the existence of these standards that are intended to guide federal prison accommodation approaches, Minister Toews has even gone as far as to say "It's not a big deal… It's an absolutely important aspect of facilities, it's constitutional, it's legal. Many western democracies do that. There's nothing inappropriate about that” (see 4 May 2010 article by Janice Tibbetts). And while Toews has repeatedly insisted that double-bunking is appropriate, advice from his own Senior Deputy Commissioner of CSC, Marc-Arthur Hyppolite, sent to him in a 16 February 2010 Briefing Note (see copy of original following the text) concluded:

For any double bunking, other than emergency management, institutional heads are required to have an exemption authorized, in advance, by the Commissioner. This exemption sets the maximum level to which an institution can normally be double bunked... It is important to note that the increased use of double bunking places significant stress on the staff and infrastructure of an institution. Further expansion of double bunking increases the risk to staff and offender safety in an institution.

There are a number of reasons why high ranking officials within CSC are concerned about overcrowding, and double-bunking specifically. We only have to look back to the 1970s and 1980s where penitentiaries across the country – KP, BCP, Archambault – were overcrowded and incompatible prisoners were placed on the same ranges or in the same cells, which contributed to riots erupting and violence to surge in these facilities.

Prisons kill. No matter how much we dehumanize and demonize those we criminalize and imprison, it does not change the fact that they are someone’s brother or sister, son or daughter, father or mother, who in the majority of cases will feel a great degree of loss when their loved one has died in prison.

The minority Conservative Government of Canada needs to abandon its punishment agenda, not only because it will not make our communities safer, not only because they will bankrupt my generation with prison mortgages we will be paying until we retire, but because it will likely result in more deaths in custody.

Copy of a Letter from Minister Toews to a Constituent

Obtained from CSC through ATI Request A-2010-00019

Copy of the February 16, 2010 Briefing Note to Minister Toews

Obtained from CSC through ATI Request A-2010-00019

Report: CSC Expanding 35 Institutions

According to a blog post by Rob Tripp of the Kingston Whig Standard (read 6 August 2010 post), Chris Price - Assistant Commissioner, Correctional Operations and Programs, Correctional Service of Canada - has compiled a list of federal penitentiaries where new units will be built.

The report states that "Price says new units will be built at the following men's prisons: Springhill Institution, Westmorland Institution, Atlantic Institution, Montée Saint-François, La Macaza, Sainte-Anne-des-Plaines, Cowansville, Federal Training Centre, Donnacona Institution, Frontenac Institution, Fenbrook Institution, Pittsburgh Institution, Bath Institution, Beaver Creek Institution, Collins Bay Institution, Rockwood Institution, Bowden Institution, Riverbend Institution, Drumheller Institution, Drumheller Institution (Minimum), Edmonton Institution, Bowden Institution, RHC/Pacific Institution, Pê Sâkâstêw Centre, Mission Institution, Willow Cree Healing Centre, Kent Institution, Ferndale Institution, [and] William Head Institution" (see Map of Canadian Federal Penitentiaries).

The blog post also notes that facility expansions will occur at "all six women's prisons: Nova Institution for Women, Joliette Institution, Grand Valley Institution for Women..., Edmonton Institution for Women, Okimaw Ohci Healing Lodge, [and] Fraser Valley Institution for Women".

If the details in this report turnout to be accurate, it would signal that for this round of penitentiary expansion, CSC and the current federal government have adopted "pre-designation" and "closed-siting" as the strategies to construct and select locations for what, given the scope of the overall initiative and the new units being established, will essentially be new facilities.

According to Secherest (1992: 96), pre-designation "involves identification of sites in advance of need by using exclusionary or suitability criteria to screen out areas or to evaluate potential sites". This strategy is usually used when planning to build new facilities in areas where there are already penal institutions. While it is unknown whether CSC had developed such a list prior to the manufacturing of the need for new prisons as part of the Conservatives' punishment agenda, by building facilities on existing "penitentiary reserves" - large parcels of land owned by the Government of Canada where penitentiaries are often housed - they will likely be able to circumvent the usual resistance that is encountered when they have tried to establish facilities in towns and cities that don't have a large prison in their backyard (for a recent example, see CSC article on the siting of Grand Valley Institution for Women in Kitchener).

In the case where a host community has not been consulted about the looming expansion of one or more federal penitentiaries in their backyard, it can be argued that CSC and the Feds have also employed a closed-siting strategy "which places the local community in the position of reacting to a government proposal in an adversarial fashion at the time that permits are requested" should they oppose a prison construction initiative (Secherest, 1992: 97).

Taken together, these "decide, announce, defend" approaches (Chambers, 1989) represent the minority Conservative Government of Canada's unwillingness to consult with key stakeholders prior to implementing their policies, let alone developing them. We can now add another checkmark in the column of 'transparent' government.

References

Chambers, Marion (1989) "Learning to Live with LULU's", Environmental and Urban Issues, 16: 17-22.

Druar, Laura, Peter J. Carrington and John Goyder (1998) "Community Reactions to the New Prison for Women in Kitchener", Forum on Corrections Research, 10(2).

Secherest, Dale K. (1992) "Locating Prisons: Open Versus Closed Approaches", Crime & Delinquency, 38(1): 88-104.

2010 Prison Justice Day Events Across Canada

Prison Justice Day (PJD) emerged as a prisoner-initiatied day of non-violent strike action to commemorate the August 10, 1974 death of Eddie Nalon in the segregation unit of Millhaven maximum-security penitentiary. It was first observed in 1975, and in 1976 the prisoners of Millhaven issued a communication "To All Prisoners and Concerned Peoples from across Canada", calling for one-day hunger strikes in opposition to the use of solitary confinement and in support of prisoners' rights, in memory of Eddie Nalon as well as Robert Landers, who also died along in solitary confinement (see www.prisonjustice.ca).

Since that time individuals and groups on the outside have used PJD not only as a day to bring attention to deaths in custody, but also other prison justice issues such as facility overcrowding, mental health, the overrepresentation of Aboriginals in our penal institutions, and broader social justice issues in our communities.

Below is a snapshot (albeit incomplete) of PJD events taking place across Canada.

MONTREAL

Criminalizing Risk:

Discussion and Presentations on the Criminalization of HIV Transmission

Thursday, August 12, 2010

6:30pm - 8:30pm

Association sportive et communautaire Centre-Sud

2093 rue de la Visitation (between Sherbrooke East and Ontario)

This community dialogue and panel discussion will bring together a host of people involved in HIV prevention and HIV legal issues to discuss the recent legal shifts in Canada that have seen the deepening criminalization of HIV transmission, risk, and nondisclosure. The panel will speak to the costs and harms to HIV positive communities brought about these shifts, as well as how we might confront - and reverse - this trend. Speakers will present in both French and English. Whisper translation in both directions will be provided. This event will take place as part of PJD efforts across the country, an annual commemoration of the lives of all prisoners who have died while in custody, including the many Canadian prisoners who have died from AIDS related illness while in prison.

Event Sponsors:

Prisoner Correspondence Project

Politi-Q

AIDS Community Care Montreal

Contact: Prisoner Correspondence Project (info@prisonercorrespondenceproject.com)

Prison Radio Coverage of PJD

Friday, August 13, 2010

11:00am - 12:00pm

CKUT 90.3 FM

Visit CKUT

OTTAWA

Prison Justice Day:

A Time to Reflect Upon Deaths in Custody and Other Issues Inside Our Prisons

Tuesday, August 10, 2010

12:00pm - 1:15pm

Ottawa Public Library, Main Branch - Auditorium

120 Metcalfe Street

Speakers include Kim Pate (Executive Director, Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies), Susan Haines (Volunteer and Consultant), Michelle Mann (Lawyer and Consultant), and Peter Collins (Federal Prisoner).

For those who are not fasting as one of the ways some memorialize deaths in custody, please bring your lunches. Coffee, juice and water will be provided by the Journal of Prisoners on Prisons.

For more information visit Tracking the Politics of 'Crime' and Punishment in Canada.

Justice Symposium

Tuesday, August 10, 2010

2:30pm

Bronson Centre Theatre

210 Bronson Avenue

Keynote speaker for the Justice Symposium, Anne Marie Hagan, is an insightful and knowledgeable motivational speaker, known for her ability to captivate an audience and effectively deliver a message of forgiveness and hope. Having faced the incredible obstacle of the murder of her father, she challenges and empowers us to look beyond our anger to find the ability to forgive.

Registration: $30 ($15 for students)

Contact: Elizabeth Fry Society of Ottawa (info@efryottawa.com)

TORONTO

Prisoners' Justice Day Radio

Tuesday, August 10, 2010

12:00pm - 6:00pm

CHRY 105.5 FM

Histories, interviews and music dedicated to PJD.

Visit CHRY

Prison Justice Day Fast

Tuesday, August 10, 2010

11am - 6pm

Holy Trinity Anglican Church

10 Trinity Square (Bay & Queen, behind the Eaton Centre)

For those who chose to fast in solidarity with those inside, we will break our fast with dinner at 6:00pm.

RSVP by August 6.

Sponsored by:

Toronto Bishop's Working Group on Justice and Corrections

The Bridge Prison Ministry

John Howard Society of Toronto

Toronto Restorative Justice Conference

Toronto Harm Reduction Task Force

Holy Trinity Anglican Church

Contact: Gary (garryg@golden.net)

Prison Justice Day Vigil

Tuesday, August 10, 2010

4:00pm - 7:00pm

South Riverdale Community Health Centre (SRCHC), A/B room

955 Queen Street East (at Carlaw Street)

A vigil, discussion and free supper will be held at SRCHC from 4:00pm - 5:30pm in the A/B room. Afterwards, we will walk in procession to the Don Jail for the 6:30pm vigil.

Contacts: Molly Bannerman (mbannerman@srchc.com) and Zoe Dodd (zdodd@srchc.com)

Candlelight Vigil at the Don Jail

Tuesday, August 10, 2010

6:30pm

550 Gerrard Street East

Join us for speakers, performers and a candlelight vigil at dusk when we read the names of those we have lost to the prison system.

VANCOUVER

Prison Justice Day Program

Monday, August 9, 2010

7:00pm - 8:00pm

102.7 FM, Starchoice #845

A special program in honour of August 10th, a day to remember those who have died inside prisons in Canada and around the world. We hear from one lifer, who is now on the outside, about his experiences with PJD on the inside and on the outside, and how the prison system is making it harder to celebrate PJD on the inside. Vancouver organizers talk about PJD, its history and organizing today.

Contact: Stark Raven Media Collective (starkraven@prisonjustice.ca)

Prison Justice Day Rally

Tuesday, August 1o, 2010

7:00pm - 8:00pm

Claire Culhane Memorial Bench, Trout Lake Park (southeast corner)

Speakers include ex-prisoners and anti-prison activists. All welcome.

Contact: Prison Justice Day Committee (pjd@prisonjustice.ca)

'Unreported Crime' and the $70 Billion Price Tag: Existing Phenomenons that Require Explanations, Not Obfuscation

Over the past few months, the minority Conservative Government of Canada's punishment agenda has been critiqued as being unnecessary in a context of declining police-reported 'crime' rates and economically prohibitive in a time of fiscal crisis.

In response to the economic critique, Public Safety Minister Vic Toews has publicly stated that 'crime' costs Canadians $70 billion each year and that placing people in prison will reduce this cost to Canadians. The problem with this assertion, even if one looks beyond the fact that the figure used by Toews is outdated (read the 2003 Department of Justice note on the "Costs of Crime in Canada: An Update"), is that no where in the literature is there evidence that increasing our reliance on incarceration leads to reductions in the conflicts and harms in our communities that are commonly called 'crimes'. This disconnect seems to be lost on the Minister, and even if we were to take this $70 billion figure, it should be noted that $13 billion of the estimated dollars spent in 2003 to cover the costs of 'crime' were used to fund our police, courts, prisons and community incarceration services. Add these two elements together and what more prisons get us is not a cost savings, but an escalation in the costs of 'crime'.

In response to the substantive critique that pursuing a punishment agenda in a context of declining police-reported 'crime' rates is unnecessary, Conservative Members of Parliament, including Shelly Glover (read 1 April 2010 post), have stated that 'crime' is going up, citing rising rates of unreported 'crime'. Today, Treasury Board President Stockwell Day - who was at one time the Minister of Public Safety - reiterated this argument while he was championing his government's fiscal austerity measures in response to the following question from CBC News reporter Terry Milewski:

Mr. Day, you told Theo [another reporter] a moment ago that the government doesn't want to send confusing signals to Canadians and to markets about its commitment to cutting the deficit. At the same time during a time of declining crime rates you want to blow $9 billion on new prisons. If that is not a confusing signal, what is? Why do you expect to be taken seriously as a deficit fighter if you're prepared to do that despite the absence of any need?

While the scrum that ensued has been the subject of a YouTube clip (view here), news stories (read CBC News), and political talk shows (e.g. watch today's episode of CBC's Power & Politics), Day's statement does have some merit, albeit meagre. As noted by Jane Taber from the Globe and Mail (read article), yes, there exists data on unreported 'crime' (see Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, 2005).

At the same time, these statistics are again dated, and should similar results emerge in a future study, those figures would not simply cancel-out police-reported 'crime' figures. As noted in a piece by Mike de Souza of Postmedia News (read article), Statistics Canada officials do not agree with Day's statements "saying that this data cannot be compared to police-reported crime statistics, since it only surveyed eight types of crimes as opposed to the hundreds of crimes investigated by police".

When interviewed by de Souza, Warren Silver - an official with the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics - noted that the unreported 'crime' figures were "good complementary data source that we can put together with the police to get a better picture of crime... I know that a lot of people want to compare one data set to another - the police-reported (data) versus the victim-reported (data)... I think it's important to say they're different kinds of things in themselves".

But beyond the debate over the meaning of the figures, we need to return to the central premise guiding the Conservatives' penal policy: that increasing our reliance on incarceration will enhance safety in our communities. Again, a growing body of literature indicates that this is not case which is further substantiated by the fact that many jurisdictions across the world who have adopted mass incarceration policies in the past as a means to address 'crime' are now abandoning them.

No matter how much politicians try to confuse Canadians on this issue, this fact remains.

Looking to Cash-in on the Punishment Agenda: Minister Blackburn Lobbies for a Federal Penitentiary in his Riding

Since their election in 2006, the minority Conservative Government of Canada has spear-headed a punishment agenda that aims to put more people behind bars for longer periods of time with fewer chances of release. Sensing that the legislative changes would result in a dramatic increase in our prison population, and subsequently, the construction of new penal institutions, a number of communities are looking to cash-in on what is perceived to be a handsome economic stimulus package.

In Pontiac (Québec), the retrenchment in the forestry sector prompted the provincial government's Ministère du Développement économique, de l'innovation et de l'exportation to undertake a study that assessed the potential economic benefits of establishing a penitentiary in the county. The report, "Projet de pénitencier fédéral dans la MRC Pontiac", was presented to mayors in the region in 2007 (see CBC News article) who were reportedly scheduled to meet their MP, Lawrence Cannon, to ask him to lobby for a federal prison in his riding.

In Valemount (British Columbia), a small group of citizens presented a proposal for a new medium-security penitentiary at an April 2010 municipal council meeting as a means to attract "much needed stimulus to our village" (watch Valemount Live - minutes 2:17 to 6:10). Plan in hand, the proponents have approached their MP, Cathy McLeod, to lobby the Correctional Service of Canada on their behalf.

The Government of New Brunswick has also sought to benefit from penal patronage and have called upon one of their local MP's, Tilly O'Neill-Gordon, to lobby the Feds to select Atlantic Institution in Renous as one of the facilities for expansion as part of the implementation of the so-called 'Truth in Sentencing' legislation.

Not wanting to miss out on the action, federal Cabinet Minister Jean-Pierre Blackburn sent a letter to Public Safety Minister Vic Toews on 8 March 2010 inquiring about the possibility of establishing a federal penitentiary in Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean.

In his response (see copy of original below), Toews stated that there are no approved plans to build new penitentiaries in Québec at this time. He went on to write that should additional capacity be needed due to legislative changes it would be more economical and quicker to expand existing facilities. It is also noted that future needs can be met by replacing and consolidating existing facilities, which would allow for the use of existing properties. Should new facilities be needed in the future, Toews states that site selection would be based on a number of factors including the community of origin of prisoners, the proximity of prospective sites to services, as well as personnel such as health and mental health professionals. He notes that these and other factors often result in penitentiaries being built near large urban centres. Toews concludes his letter to his Cabinet colleague by stating that in the hypothetical situation where a site would be needed for a new penitentiary the analysis would be undertaken based on the interest of communities in the operational region were such a facility would be required.

* Letter obtained through an Access to Information request filed with CSC.

The Blackburn-Toews exchange and other examples of the politics of penal patronage discussed above raise a number of issues.

First, it appears that a number of Conservative MP's view the expansion of our prisons as of result of their punishment agenda as another opportunity to increase their political capital by attracting new jobs to their struggling communities via the 'crime-control industry'. What is troubling about this trend is that these prospective profiteers of human misery assume that their constituents will benefit from the establishment of penal institutions in their towns while an increasing number of studies are showing that the purported economic benefits said to accompany the establishment of new prisons often do not materialize (read 12 May 2010 post). Moreover, the money diverted into building and operating prisons could be invested in our communities to prevent victimization and meet the needs of those impacted by the conflicts and harms we call 'crime'. These funds could also be deployed to enhance the quality of life of Canadians through investments in health care, transportation and other services that attract economic investment.

A second issue that is raised is one of governmental management and transparency. For months we have heard that the government's punishment agenda will cost billions to implement. Given the magnitude of the expenditures involved, one would think that the matter of deciding how to absorb a massive influx of new prisoners in the years ahead would be an issue discussed amongst members of the Conservative caucus and Cabinet. Yet, we have a number of Conservative MP's and Cabinet Ministers lobbying for new penitentiaries that the Public Safety Minister says are not being built. Which begs the question: is CSC's long-term plan to build new facilities discussed by CSC Commissioner Don Head (read 22 June 2010 Calgary Sun editorial) closer to coming to fruition than Toews is letting on? Or is it the case that Toews - and by connection, his colleagues - are not aware of CSC's long-term plan to, in the Commissioner's words, "replace penitentiaries that have stood the test of time for many decades and no longer meet the requirements of a modern correctional system"?

No matter the case, the situation does not reflect well on our current federal government.