Cumulative Impacts of Punishment Legislation Not Discussed at October FPT Meeting?

Before and after the release of the Parliamentary Budget Office (PBO) report on the implementation costs associated with Bill C-25, the so-called 'truth in sentencing' act, officials from a number of provinces and territories have expressed concern over the cumulative impacts of federal punishment legislation on their already overcrowded prisons (read posts from May 1; May 4; May 13; June 16; read 6 October article by D'Aliesio) and their treasuries (read posts from April 29; May 22).

In response to their concerns, Public Safety Minister Vic Toews has stated that they "have been active partners in this push for legislation. They are the ones who came to us and said, 'We need this legislation'. So they are our partners, in terms of not only the crime-fighting agenda but the cost... Those are their responsibilities as well. And I believe they are - many of them are - prepared to shoulder the responsibility" (read 6 October article by Bronskill).

With implications that will likely range in the billions of dollars, the cumulative impacts and financial costs of new federal sentencing measures were not listed as a major agenda item for discussion at the October 14 and 15 Federal-Provincial-Territorial (FPT) Meeting of Ministers responsible for Justice in Vancouver (read press release). The only passages of the press release that suggests that such discussions may have occurred include a reference to "an overview of recent federal legislative initiatives" and a remark that "Ministers emphasized the need to work collaboratively on criminal law reform".

Having been invited by the Provincial-Territorial Heads of Corrections to provide an overview of the report I submitted to them and their federal counterparts regarding current prison construction initiatives this past May (read 31 May presentation notes), where I warned them of the challenges they can expect to face as they are left to absorb the influx of new prisoners serving longer sentences with fewer chances of release prior to their warrant expiry dates, I am surprised that the costs of incarceration was not item number one at the recent FPT meeting.

The fact that one year removed from the tabling of the Changing Face of Corrections Report (read press release from the 2009 FPT meeting) - which has yet to be released to the public despite my efforts to obtain this multi-jurisdictional taxpayer-funded study through access to information requests (read 5 May post) - this issue was not on the official record of high-level FPT meetings is puzzling. This leads me to ask the following questions:

Are the provinces and territories worried that discussing the costs of incarceration with the federal government could result in their being labelled 'soft on crime' and that is why they are now remaining silent (at least publicly)?

OR

Are the provinces and territories simply asleep at the switch, and are not taking the avalanche that is heading straight towards their prisons seriously?

In either case, in the months ahead Canadians will likely hear about more cases of violence and deaths inside prisons, labour disputes and budgetary quagmires from coast-to-coast-to-coast as a direct result of our current race to incarcerate.

And while governments will say "pay no mind to the rabble... go back to sleep" (listen to "Pet" by APC), we should be worried about the powder keg that will eventually explode and awaken us from our collective slumber.

-----

Note:

My information request (number JUS-10-57) filed with the Nova Scotia Department of Justice to obtain a copy of the Changing Face of Corrections report was denied in full on 20 October 2010 pursuant to section 12 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as "disclosure of this report could reasonably be expected to harm relations between the Government of Nova Scotia and other provinces in Canada.

Again, Canadians do not have a right to know about the contents of this report (read 5 May 2010 post).

Another case of democracy in action.

"...there just isn't enough data for us to do that": CSC Commissioner Claims That Prisoner Influx for S-10 is Not Known

In his appearance yesterday before the Senate committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs to discuss Bill S-10 (read legislation), which among other things proposes a mandatory minimum sentence of 6 months for those convicted of producing as little as 5 marijuana plants, Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) Commissioner Don Head was asked about what impact this law would have on the size of the federal prison population and his department's budget.

Having previously responded to similar questions in previous appearances before House of Commons and Senate committees regarding other punishment bills that such answers could not be divulged as they were matters of "Cabinet confidence" (read here), Head took it one step further stating that "[g]oing back and trying to find specific data... that gives us enough information to say that this bill is going to equal X number coming into [the] correctional system, there just isn't enough data for us to do that" (read article by Stephanie Levitz).

Given that this is the third time this bill has been tabled (see C-26 - 39th Parliament, 2nd Session; C-15 - 40th Parliament, 2nd Session), it is hard to believe that government officials do not have, at the very least, a rough idea of the impact of this legislation on CSC institutions and related costs. After all, it has been almost three years since this legislation was first introduced into Parliament - plenty of time for CSC to gather the necessary data.

So again, Senators are in the position of voting for a Conservative punishment bill in the dark, not knowing the potential influx of prisoners that may result from the law should it be passed. However, they do know that there are many substantive problems with this bill, not the least of which is the fact that "[s]evere MMS [mandatory minimum sentences] seem to be least effective in relation to drug offences" (read 2002 Justice Canada report, section 9.5).

One would think that given the substantive and procedural issues with Bill S-10, that Senators would stop this legislation dead in its tracks before it is sent to the House of Commons for their rounds of votes. However, now that the Conservatives have the majority in this chamber, it will likely be up to the majority opposition MP's to have the political courage to scrap this piece of trash masquerading as legislation that will enhance 'public safety'.

How Many Prisoners Is It Again Commissioner Head?

In a story written by Heather Scoffield published today in the Toronto Star (read here; also read article by Janice Tibbetts), it is noted that Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) Commissioner Don Head estimates that "the crime legislation will mean an extra 4,478 people in federal prisons across the country over the next three years".

This figure is different from the 3,400 additional federal prisoners Head projected in his 22 June 2010 editorial in the Calgary Sun (read here; also read 23 June 2010 post) that he penned in response to the Parliamentary Budget Office's (PBO) forecasted 4,189 federal prisoner increase as a result of Bill C-25 (read 22 June 2010 post).

Based on the Commissioner's 22 June projection of a 3,400 prisoner increase, new units were to accommodate 2,700 additional prisoners, with another 700 prisoners being accommodated using double-bunking. With the projection now standing at 4,478 prisoners, is CSC planning to build 1,078 new prisoner beds on top of what they had already planned to build or are they planning to double-bunk all these prisoners that were previously unaccounted for in their numbers?

Another interesting facet of this story is that Head's 22 June cost estimate remains $2 billion today despite having added another 1,078 new prisoners to the mix. CSC is now projecting to absorb 289 more prisoners - albeit with additional bills in mind - than the PBO projected, yet the organization's cost estimate is $3 billion below that of our independent Library of Parliament accountants and researchers. This state of affairs defies logic.

It is with this in mind that the Canadian public, the media and Parliamentarians should renew their calls for some "Truth in Budgeting" (read here) to accompany the minority Conservative Government of Canada's so-called "Truth in Sentencing" agenda. Given the discrepancy between the prison population and related cost projections of CSC and the PBO, and the Commissioner Head's rolling estimates, the federal government ought to publish CSC's paper trail on this file so that Canadians can see their numbers and how they came to them. Only then, will we know just who to believe (the PBO or CSC) regarding the actual economic costs of increasing our reliance on punishment - an ineffective approach to addressing the complex harms and conflicts in our communities that we call 'crime'.

Who is Toews Speaking For and What is the Basis For His Claims?

As federal penitentiary guards assembled in Ottawa yesterday to protest their wages, as well as the minority Conservative Government of Canada's punishment agenda that is increasing the use of double-bunking and making their workplaces more dangerous (read article by Tibbetts and Stone), and a few protesters gathered outside a Kingston prison (read article by Tripp), Public Safety Minister Vic Toews held a press conference to announce the construction of new units at federal penitentiaries located in Ontario (Bath Institution, Collins Bay Institution and Millhaven Institution - read press release) and Québec (Federal Training Centre, Montée St-François Institution and Sainte-Anne-des-Plaines Institution - read press release).

While the Conservatives say this is about "helping deliver safer communities" and the "rights of victims" (read here), and "reaffirming" their commitment to the cities and towns where penitentiaries are located, the substance of their agenda and the process through which they are implementing it flies in the face of their rhetoric.

On the Side of Victims?

In his press release, Toews stated that "Our Government is proud to be on the right side of this issue - the side of law-abiding citizens, the side of victims who want justice...".

If this is about taking the side of victims, this pledge is certainly not reflected in the 2010-2011 federal budget where only $16.6 million is allocated to this portfolio versus $2.64 billion in funding for the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC), $329.4 million of which is being allocated towards capital expenditures such as building new units.

While Conservative MPs claim that all victims' groups and supporters are on their side when it comes to expanding our reliance on prisons, the first Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime, Steve Sullivan, has stated that building these facilities does not address the complex needs of victims and that the money earmarked for prison construction should be spent on helping victims (read 6 April 2010 post).

Sullivan's claim is not only supported by his experience working with victims, it is also supported by the victimology literature where studies have shown that if other needs of victims are met - having information about their case, receiving compensation, having the harm that was done to them acknowledged by their perpetrators and being provided with assurances from them that they will not be re-victimized - incarceration becomes a far less pressing need in many circumstances.

The Side that Understands Public Safety?

In his press release, Toews also stated that "Our government is proud to be on the... side that understands the cost of a safe and secure society is an investment worth making".

The penology literature is full of studies that show that increasing our reliance on imprisonment is not a path towards enhancing safety in our communities in the long-term, because while prisons incapacitate prisoners in the short-term, the longer someone spends in prison and cut off from the communities where they are from, the more their prospects to maintain the support networks needed for safe reintegration are diminished.

Further, in a context where only 2 percent of the federal penitentiary system's budget is dedicated to programming that prisoners may need to safely reintegrate into society - a state of affairs that has led to long-waiting lists for programs in CSC institutions according to Howard Sapers, the Correctional Investigator of Canada, it makes little sense to divert funds into prison building while also adding thousands of new prisoners into a system that already cannot adequately meet its mandate.

The fact that yesterday's $155.5 million worth of investments in punishment infrastructure represents more than this government's spending on programming for prisoners is telling of what their priorities are.

This is not a recipe for public safety.

The Equivalent of a New Federal Penitentiary in Kingston

In his press release, Toews noted that the federal government would be constructing two new 96-bed units at Bath Institution, one new 96-bed unit at Millhaven Institution and another 96-bed unit at Collins Bay Institution. The 384 new beds are roughly the equivalent of building a new average-sized federal penitentiary in Kingston, except this facility development and siting strategy does not require the approval of local stakeholders.

How does this "reaffirm" the federal government's commitment to the Kingston area? If anything they are thumbing their noses at community members who should have a say as to whether or not they want the equivalent of a new prison in their backyards (for more on penitentiary siting - read 6 August 2010 post). We do live in a democratic country after all where transparency and accountability are said to be the cornerstones of governance.

The Age of Penitentiaries Where New Units Are Being Built

As I've noted previously (read 18 August 2010 post), the 2007 CSC Review Panel - that is said to be guiding the operational decisions of the penitentiary system at this time - recommended that the federal government not invest in infrastructure at aging facilities. Instead, they argued that these facilities should be replaced by regional complexes.

If the government is using this 'roadmap', why are they building new units on the grounds of the 80 year old Collins Bay Institution, the 39 year old Millhaven Institution and the 38 year old Bath Institution? What is driving the placement of these new units?

Given that Liberal MP Peter Milliken is soon to be retired and only managed to win his riding over Conservative candidate Brian Abrams by 6.6 percent in the 2008 federal election, is this a case of penal patronage intended to buy votes?

I will continue to withhold judgement on this question, but I do again want to bring attention to the fact that during this process, CSC officials and their political masters have not fully disclosed their federal penitentiary construction initiatives to anyone. Canadians have been effectively told they do not have the right to know.

Federal-Provincial-Territorial Prison Budget Showdown Continues

Not only are citizens being kept in the dark about the implications of the Conservatives punishment agenda, the provinces and territories are also navigating uncharted waters, left to drown on a boat without a motor or paddles.

During his press conference, Vic Toews responded to calls from provinces and territories such as Alberta for assistance to absorb the influx of new prisoners resulting from their legislative agenda (read article by D'Aliesio) by noting that the "provinces have been active partners in this push for legislation. They are the ones who came to us and said, 'We need this legislation'. So they are our partners, in terms of not only the crime-fighting agenda but the cost... Those are their responsibilities as well. And I believe that they are - many of them are - prepared to shoulder that responsibility" (read article by Bronskill).

The fact that governments in Ontario (read 29 April 2010 post), Manitoba (read 1 May 2010 post; read 16 June 2010 post), Nunavut (read 4 May 2010 post; read 13 May 2010 post) and elsewhere (read 22 May 2010 post), have noted that they do not have the space or money to safely implement the punishment agenda of their federal counterparts, perhaps it is time that the FPT group revisit how penal policy is drafted, debated and implemented in this country.

While tagline justice initiatives may play well politically, the human and financial costs associated with increasing our reliance on incarceration need to be considered by all stakeholders before they are implemented, not after the runaway freight train leaves the station. This process could begin by having a public discussion about the Changing Face of Corrections Report on cross-jurisdictional 'corrections' issues that has remained buried since it was tabled at the 2009 FPT meeting of ministers responsible for justice and public safety (read 5 May 2010 post).

Prison Mortgages in Context

All of this is taking place in a context where victimization rates for 8 types of 'crimes' are stable according to a recent Statistics Canada survey, and the rate of police-reported 'crimes' for hundreds of 'offences' have been declining for decades.

All of this in a context where we have the knowledge that spending $1 on preventing victimization saves taxpayers $7 they would have had to spend on incarcerating someone after the fact.

All of this in a context where Canada's population is aging and it appears that young Canadians will be paying for prison mortgages instead of more robust health care and pensions for their parents and grandparents.

All of this in the context of a fiscal crisis where governments will have to cut social programs or raise taxes to balance the books.

I've never been a fan of 4 Non Blondes, but given the circumstances I can't help but ask "what's going on?"