Add Two More Units at Stony Mountain and Rockwood

On the same day that members of the Union for Canadian Correctional Officers protested the impact of double-bunking on their work environment (read CBC News article), Minister of Public Safety Vic Toews announced a $45 million federal penitentiary system expansion initiative involving "the construction of a new 96-bed living unit at Stony Mountain Institution and a new 50-bed living unit at Rockwood Institution" (read press release).

As with the previous $155 million announcement made by Toews regarding the construction of new units on the grounds of aging penitentiaries in Kingston and Laval, today's announcement concerned the addition of cells at Stony Mountain Institution, built in 1877, and Rockwood Institution, built in 1962. The decision to expand aging institutions goes directly against Recommendation 98 of the 2007 CSC Review Panel that stated that the federal government needed to "minimize authorization of retrofit projects" (see page 160), in order to avoid dumping funds into penitentiaries that may be closed once new facilities are built. It is with this in mind that we must ask what is driving the siting of new units. Are these construction projects a product of penal patronage in the riding of Selkirk-Interlake represented by Conservative MP James Bezan or other factors?

Another issue related to this announcement that I will again raise is the amount of funds being spent on construction versus programming (read 7 October 2010 post). As noted in the 2008-2009 Annual Report of the Office of the Correctional Investigator (read here), only $37 million had been allocated to programming during that fiscal year. Again, in one announcement to expand federal penitentiaries the Conservatives have invested more on bricks and mortar than they spent on programming that prisoners may need to safely reintegrate into society.

Vic Toews claims that his "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, and the side that understands the cost of a safe and secure society...".

All of this is coming from a government that claims to be on the side of victims while diverting a significant portion of the budget dedicated to meeting their needs to funding an advertising campaign championing their punishment agenda (read previous 12 November 2010).

All of this is coming from a government that claims to be in the business of public safety while creating the very conditions inside our prisons that will undermine it (read 8 November 2010 post) by further increasing the number of prisoners through legislation it has tabled this parliamentary session, 39.7 percent of which aims to make changes to sentencing and the administration of 'cops, courts and corrections' (read 7 November 2010 post).

All of this in a stated effort to support "building stronger communities and safer streets" and none of it true.

Politics First: Ads and Legislation in the Name of Victims

On Tuesday, it was revealed by Liberal Status of Women Critic Anita Neville and Winnipeg North Liberal Candidate Kevin Lamoureux that $6 million is being spent on ads promoting the federal government's Victims Matter website (read press release). According to the Liberals, this funding is more than the $4.8 million that was spent on initiatives aimed at directly aiding victims of 'crime' in 2009-2010. An article by Sun Media reporter Laura Payton later clarified that $4.9 million was spent as part of the Victims of Crime Initiative (read here).

It should be noted that the Liberals appear to have selected one aspect of funding for victims in the 2009-2010 federal budget while ignoring that a total of $13 million had been allocated to this area of government programming. That aside, it is important to note that while the government increased its victims budget to $16.3 million this year, it made just over $3 million in cuts to both the grants and contributions to the Victims of Crime Initiative (read 6 April 2010 post) - the money for the $6 million for ads and a website had to come from somewhere after all.

While government officials will likely defend this spending as a means to promote the services offered to put "victims first", much of the 'action' touted in the commercial (watch here) are the legislative initiatives initiated by the minority Conservative Government of Canada that were passed in Parliament including:

- "Limiting Pardons for Serious Crimes"

- "Cracking Down on Street Racing"

- "Toughening Sentences for Gun Crimes"

- "Tackling Drive-By Shootings"

- "Protecting Youth from Sexual Predators"

- "Fighting Impaired Driving"

The laundry list of "government action" for victims is then expanded on the Victims Matter website where legislation currently before the House of Commons and the Senate is listed, all in the name of victims and the protection of the public.

Beyond the fact that there is no evidence that longer sentences enhances public safety in the long-term, what is omitted from this narrative concerning the trajectory of penal policy in this country is that the first Ombudsman for Victims of Crime has criticized the Conservative government's focus on longer sentences and prison construction that are leading to soaring 'correctional' budgets - priorities that leave little money to address the complex needs of victims (read partial transcript and commentary from 6 April 2010 CBC's Power & Politics interview).

Given the funding disparity between the $16.3 million budget for victims (up $3.3 million from 2009-2010) and the $2.46 billion budget for the federal penitentiary system (up $193 million from 2009-2010) to be spent this fiscal year, I would suggest that the latest government advertisement is indicative of a government whose agenda has little to do with putting "victims first" and more about putting politics first in a climate where the prospect of an election is always looming.

Overcrowded Prisons Pose a Risk to the Safety of Prisoners, Staff and Communities: Correctional Investigator of Canada

On Friday, the Minister of Public Safety Vic Toews released the 2009-2010 Annual Report of the Office of the Correctional Investigator of Canada (OCI). With the minority Conservative Government of Canada heavily invested in their punishment agenda since their arrival in office, it comes as no surprise that the Correctional Investigator of Canada Howard Sapers noted that many of our federal penitentiaries are bursting at the seams.

Key findings outlined in the OCI report include a 50% increase in the use of double bunking in the past five years, a shortage in available programming for prisoners, higher levels of violent incidents and staff usage of force, and crumbling infrastructure due to the age and number of prisoners in the federal penitentiary system.

While I will comment further on the findings of the OCI report and the official response from the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) at a later date (read here), the initial response from the Minister of Public Safety Vic Toews on CBC's Power & Politcs with Evan Solomon (view minutes 3:20 to 12:25) suggests that the recent findings and recommendations of Howard Sapers and his office are not being taken all that seriously by the Feds.

When questioned by Solomon about the fact that the Correctional Investigator has stated that double bunking - a primary way the government is planning to accommodate prisoners going forward - is not appropriate, Toews turned to one of his most practiced talking points: “The practice of double bunking in certain facilities is appropriate, and can be done safely and it is legal... I will take the advice of the head of the correctional service who makes those operational decisions”.

What is dishonest about this statement is that Minister Toews has been receiving advice from senior CSC officials that double bunking puts the safety of prisoners and staff at risk as noted in a February 2010 briefing note I obtained (read 8 August 2010 post). But the truth has no place when the federal government is defending its penal policies that have put CSC officials in the position of having to make the best of a bad situation.

As Solomon pressed Toews about the OCI’s position regarding the negative impact that overcrowding has had on the ability of CSC to provide programming for prisoners to help them reintegrate into society, the Minister responded:

"...let’s not get confused about the chicken and the egg – which one comes first. Many of the individuals who are now in our prisons are very dangerous... I confer regularly with the head of corrections.... to make sure that our guards are safe, and then, that these individuals are treated appropriately... I would much rather have dangerous individuals in our prison system than outside in our streets. The government makes no apologies for that".

Apparently, Toews is so concerned with defending his problematic and crisis-inducing ‘public safety’ policies that he doesn’t read the memos and the reports that have sounded the alarm. What he fails to realize is that if this keeps up, our prisons will explode and he will need to apologize in one form or another, perhaps at a Royal Commission that would examine the probable riots and violence that may plague our prisons in the years ahead.

Following his interview with the Minister of Public Safety, Solomon discussed the contents of the OCI report and its implications with Howard Sapers (view minutes 13:42 to 21:02).

Noting again that “double bunking specifically has gone up 50% in five years, and in the short term and medium term the plan is for it to go up even further”, Sapers emphasized that while Minister Toews may say the practice is safe, “[c]orrections officers will tell you that it's not safe. Inmates will tell you it’s not safe. My investigators tell me it’s not safe”.

As Solomon continued the discussion of this issue stating that Toews says that the practice is legal, Sapers responded: “...well, I guess there’s a difference between legal and safe”. Later in the interview the Correctional Investigator of Canada listed specific problems associated with overcrowded prisons:

"...you see more tension. You see more violence. You see more hesitation on the part of staff to intervene. It’s just not good correctional practice which is why the international standard is single-cell accommodation... Currently, what we are seeing is more institutional violence. We’re seeing less up-take in terms of correctional programming and we’re seeing more offenders spending more time in prison before release without the benefit of correctional intervention".

After Sapers remarks on a federal penitentiary system in crisis, Solomon concluded the interview by asking him if we are “moving away from good correctional practice or closer?”

Sapers response: “Evan, that’s really the underlying theme in my report, that we’re moving away from it. We’re moving away from the things we have learned about what constitutes good correctional practice”.

What is troubling about the report released on Friday and the political fall-out is that in this age of ‘truthiness’ what we have learned seems to be inconsequential to the minority Conservative Government of Canada who will invariably blame the Liberals for the current crisis in our penitentiaries despite the fact that they are the ones who have precipitated it in their five years in office.

It is time that the government that “rode into on the horse of accountability”, to use the words of NDP MP Pat Martin, take responsibility for their actions and seek treatment for their addiction to incarceration that is causing irreparable harm to the fabric of Canadian society.

In my view, a punishment moratorium that would see a shift of resources towards initiatives that will actually prevent victimization at a lesser cost such as justice reinvestment (read 7 November 2010 post) be seriously considered. After almost two centuries of the proven failure of imprisonment, it is high time that we abandon the carceral experiment.

Related media coverage:
- CTV News
- Globe and Mail
- Postmedia News
- Sun Media
- Toronto Star

So-called 'Public Safety' Laws Account for 39.7% of Federal Government Bills Tabled this Parliamentary Session

In the context of an economic crisis, the minority Conservative Government of Canada seems to have found their primary weapon of mass distraction - so-called 'public safety' laws.

5 of 13 government bills tabled in the Senate (38.5%) and 22 of the 55 government bills tabled in the House of Commons (40%) during the third session of the 40th Parliament of Canada involve some kind of 'reform' to sentencing provisions or the administration of the penal system (a.k.a. the 'criminal justice' system). Taken together, 27 of 68 government bills (39.7%) - or nearly 4 out of every 10 pieces of legislation - involve changes to the way 'cops, courts and corrections' function in this country (scroll below to view the legislation tracker).

A Prison for Almost Every Problem

For the time being, it seems that there is not a challenge we face that the federal government thinks could not be resolved by tabling legislation that will lead to an increase in the use of imprisonment.

You have an addiction - we have a prison for that.

You have a mental health issue - we have a prison for that.

You have arrived on the shores of Canada looking to escape conflict and persecution at home - we have a prison for that.

You took advantage of weak financial regulations and oversight to build a fortune on the backs of clients that trusted you - we have a prison for that.

You protested the prevailing economic order in which 10% of the world's richest control 85% of the wealth - we have a prison for that too.

Despite warnings from watchdogs (read 2009-2010 Annual Report of the OCI), senior prison officials (read 8 August 2010 post), guards (read 6 October 2010 Tibbetts and Stone article), prisoners (read 4 November 2010 CBC News article) and others who know full-well the dangers of increasing our reliance on incarceration and prison overcrowding, the federal Minister of Public Safety seems unconcerned. Emboldened by a vision of 'public safety' that offers little more than temporary incapacitation in the name of victims of 'crime' who are portrayed as having a unified voice in support of the government's carceral binge, we are on a path that will likely lead to more victimization in the future because when it comes to the reintegration of criminalized populations, this government has little to offer.

We know this, yet the drum beat persists and the tempo is picking up.

Some will say that where penal policy and practice is concerned that "the times they are a-changin", to use an expression included in the title of the April 2010 conference of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police. While the trajectory of penal policy in Canada is one that is leading us towards a significant increase in the use of imprisonment as a response to the complex conflicts and harms in our communities that we call 'crime', our carceral future is hardly set in stone.

Building Community Capacity through
Justice Reinvestment and Transparent Democracy

I suggest that the tide can be changed, beginning with discussions that allow us to reimagine the meaning of ‘public safety’. For a number years this term has been coopted by the state and associated with 'cops, courts and corrections'. We need to reappropriate and redefine this term or we risk the continuation of a debate on the narrow terms of the penal system rather than engaging in a discussion about what it actually means to be safe – to have a job, to have a roof over our heads, to be able to afford to eat and pay our bills, to have access to health and mental health services, to be able to address the complex needs of those in conflict and so on. Ultimately, we need to free ourselves of the prisons, particularly those in our minds, that we choose to live inside that limit our conceptualization and response to the serious issues we face in our communities.

One way that my abstract proposal could be put into practice would be to develop a justice reinvestment strategy. Justice reinvestment involves an analysis of the total costs of policing, courts, imprisonment and community supervision by neighbourhood. From there, a portion of the total of these funding allotments are diverted from the penal system and reinvested in education, employment, health and mental health care, and social housing services, as well as other resources aimed at building community in an effort to prevent and address the social issues we call ‘crime’. Following implementation, results are analysed in an effort to inform on-going policy development and service delivery. Faced with growing budgetary constraints related to inflated prison budgets, jurisdictions such as Texas and Kansas have begun to implement justice reinvestment strategies to reduce their reliance on incarceration and address the underlying issues that contribute to ‘crime’.

Another way that my abstract proposal could be put into practice is to create a climate where transparency on penal policy matters is a cornerstone. Since the minority Conservative Government of Canada took office in 2006, the details regarding the implementation and costs of proposed punishment bills have been kept under wraps. As a result, federal parliamentarians have voted on legislation in the dark, and the provinces and territories who are left holding the bag have not had adequate time or the resources to prepare for the storm that lies ahead. The lack of transparency the federal government has engaged in on these matters should have no place in a democratic Canada.

'Shut the Fuck Up'?

With the future of our communities – both inside and outside – lying in the balance, there is a need for all Canadians to demand transparency and responsible policy decision-making from the Feds in order to change the trajectory of penality in this country. One option is to resist the punishment agenda of the minority Conservative Government of Canada. The other option is to “shut the fuck up” for fear of being labelled 'soft on crime' if you're a politician, having your federal funding pulled from you if you're part of an NGO that provides community supervision and reintegration services for prisoners, or because you're a citizen who could care less because it is "only criminals", after all, that will be impacted. However, the collateral consequences of the Canadian push towards mass incarceration - human, economic and political - are prooving to be disasterous. It's in times like these that silence is not an option.

* Selected excerpts from a 8 November 2010 presentation at the Annual General Meeting of the John Howard Society of Toronto.