Justice Committee on Oct. 27th, 2011

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Sorry, I talked too long.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

I'd like to thank the panel for being here today. As you can tell, time is always of the essence and we do run out of it.

We'll take a two-minute break to switch panels.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

For the second panel we have two witnesses with us in the room, and we have two witnesses who are going to join us by teleconferencing.

The witnesses will have an opportunity to make a five-minute address to the committee. I will let you know at four minutes that you have one minute left.

Perhaps we can start with Mr. Sullivan.

[Steve Sullivan, Former Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, members of the committee, for allowing me to come here today to talk to you a little about our views on the bill.

Just briefly, I am the former Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime and I'm currently with Ottawa Victim Services. There are provisions in the bill that we do support, particularly the enhancements of victims' rights within the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. Those are enhancements that many victims' advocates have been calling for, for some time. They originally crept up, I think, in 2000 in the committee's report on the review of the CCRA, and were first introduced through similar amendments by the Liberal government in 2005. So we've been waiting for these provisions to become a reality for a long time.

I know the current ombudsman talked about the report on the CCRA by his ombudsman's office and some further enhancements to those rights. I would encourage members, if you haven't already, to take a look at that report as you deliberate the bill.

I will offer support for the provisions regarding victims of terrorism. I don't pretend to understand the complexities and subtleties of how that process will unfold and, frankly, whether it will be available or useful to many victims of terrorism, but I do support the principles. I know that some of my friends who have been victims of terrorism support those provisions, so I would echo their support.

Our biggest concern about the bill is what I think victims are being told they can expect from it. I've heard some of the testimony of some of my good friends, including Sharon Rosenfeldt and Yvonne Harvey. I think the government has talked about this as a further pillar of its commitment to victims of crime, that the bill is going to enhance victims' rights. I take a different view. From working on the front line and having discussions with many of my colleagues there and with a lot of our networks, the issues in this bill, frankly, are not the issues that come up when we talk about the day-to-day challenges of victims of crime.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Chair, on a point of order, I'm curious about something and wanted to have confirmation of it.

Don't worry, it won't be taken off your time, Mr. Sullivan.

On our witness list, it indicates that Mr. Sullivan is appearing as an individual, but he has referred several times to “we” as if he were representing a group. I just want to have confirmation from Mr. Sullivan whether he is here as an individual and is giving his opinion, or whether he's here for a group.

[Steve Sullivan]

I'm here as an individual. I'm saying “we” in terms of this being a collective process.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Great.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Steve Sullivan]

The issues that we talk about, and I say “we” when I mean colleagues in the field who work in similar capacities as I do, are not the issues I hear when I attend and participate in their meetings. One of our concerns in this age of limited resources—and we all know the financial challenges that our country faces—is that we are not sure this is the best use of resources, if the goal is to benefit victims of crime. Here I refer, for example, to the provisions to enhance the sentencing of sex offenders.

Let me say to the previous witness that many of the people targeted by this bill are actually not pedophiles. Not everyone who offends against a child is a pedophile, and many of those who offend against their children or members of their family are not pedophiles and are at a low risk reoffending. Perhaps we can discuss that in questioning. But we're spending five times as much on punishing offenders as the government is spending on child advocacy centres, which would actually help heal the hearts and minds of their victims. I think that's an important point to make.

I have yet to see—and I've attended some of the hearings—any evidence that would convince me that this bill will actually make victims safer or society safer in the long run. I think the challenge or concern I have with the bill is that it is being promoted as a pillar of the commitment to victims of crime, when we see—without the provisions I talked about—very little that will change the day-to-day circumstances of those people who are victimized by crime.

I've heard the cost of victimization being referred to. The cost of crime is a huge burden on victims. Again, I don't see anything in this bill that's going to alleviate the burden on Ms. Harvey, for example, who talked about the costs she incurred after the murder of her daughter. Again, it would be nice if the government kept its commitment from a year and half ago to making the victim-of-crime surcharge mandatory. That would actually enhance victim services in the community. It might actually enhance some compensation programs that would alleviate some of those concerns.

The other concern I have with the bill is the notion that it will enhance victims' rights. One of the things we know from research is that when we actually include victims in discussions throughout the process, when we give them information about how the process works and what's happening with their cases, and give them a voice and listen to them and ask what their opinions are, we know that they will be much more satisfied, even if the sentence isn't what they thought it might have be. We know with victim impact statements, for example, that one of the most important factors with regard to satisfaction is whether the judge acknowledges the harm done to a victim, even if the sentence might not be been what they thought it should be.

My concern, based on the testimony from James Chaffe of the Crown Counsel Association, is that crowns are going to be busier. They're going to have more trials; there will be more plea bargains and more stays. That's not an agenda that's going to help the victims of crime who are seeking justice.

The last point I'll make, Mr. Chair, to wrap up quickly, is that the majority of crime victims don't report in the first place. This bill will not offer any solace to most victims of crime.

I was testifying yesterday at the Senate. It's reviewing Bill C-46, which was passed in the 1990s to protect records of sexual assault complainants. The panel that we had, all of them front-line people, all agreed that sentencing has very little to do with whether or not victims are going to come forward and report. It really is not even a factor in whether a woman decides whether she's going to report a crime. There are so many other barriers.

I would rather see us take scarce resources and provide them to communities and to programs that are actually going to help the majority of victims heal and begin that healing process. I'm afraid this bill is not going to do that very well.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Thank you.

Chief MacKnight.

[Barry MacKnight, Police Chief, Chair, Drug Abuse Committee, Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, Fredericton Police Force]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and committee members.

Let me begin by thanking each of you for inviting me to appear today regarding this very important bill.

My name is Barry MacKnight, and in addition to my position with the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, I'm the Chief of Police in Fredericton, New Brunswick.

In 2007, CACP adopted a drug policy developed by the drug abuse committee, which I chair. This policy sets out the position of CACP on this very important national issue that has direct impacts on Canadians on a day-to-day basis.

Beyond the pain and suffering Canadians endure because of the use and abuse of drugs, the best research we have from the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse shows that the social cost of illegal drugs in Canada is $8.2 billion per year.

Let me provide a brief overview of our CACP drug policy. We believe in a balanced approach to the issue of substance use and abuse in Canada to counter Canada's drug problems. It consists of prevention, education, enforcement, counselling, treatment, rehabilitation and, where appropriate, alternative measures and the diversion of offenders. We believe in a balanced continuum of practice distributed across each component.

In addition, the policy components must be fundamentally lawful and ethical, must consider the interests of all, and must strive to achieve a balance between societal and individual interests. We believe that to the greatest extent possible, initiatives should be evidence based.

We strongly believe that prevention is the most important component. Drug education and positive youth development to build resistance strategies towards substance use, as a regular and sustained part of the school curriculum, is imperative.

We are committed to enforcement practices that target the criminal infrastructure that supports and perpetuates the cycle of crime, violence, disorder, and the victimization of the most vulnerable citizens in our communities.

We endorse the practice of police discretion in individual communities, but believe that there should be emphasis on the enforcement of laws against the possession and illegal use of drugs, where the users are engaged in behaviours that harm or interfere with the lawful use or enjoyment of public and private property and contribute to street disorder. In particular, we believe that enforcement should be a priority in parks, in and around schools, and in other locations where vulnerable people, including children and youths, are placed at risk.

We support a range of strategies that serve to reduce harm in society and, in the past, have expressed qualified support for certain activities that reduce harm, such as needle exchange programs, for example. We acknowledge that the reduction of harm is necessary to support public health objectives, such as reducing transmission rates of HIV and hepatitis, and to prevent drug overdoses. But reducing harm should reflect temporary measures to prevent those suffering from addiction from contracting disease, injuring themselves, or dying before they have an opportunity to access and eventually succeed at treatment.

Some initiatives designed to reduce harm to drug abusers may conflict with law enforcement activities intended to address public safety issues. Therefore, we encourage the management and mitigation of those impacts through communication with community partners.

Treatment will reduce the number of people suffering from addiction and reduce addiction-related behaviours that harm society, to which the police must devote valuable and limited resources. We support legislated and properly resourced programs, such as drug courts and other initiatives, which facilitate and enforce mandated treatment programs.

The amendments to the CDSA in this bill are aligned with the CACP's focus on dealing with the most serious drug crimes that impact our communities. The clear message to Canadians from these drug crime amendments is that these are serious crimes that warrant serious consequences.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

You have one minute left.

[Barry MacKnight]

Thank you.

The aggravating factors speak for themselves: offences committed for a criminal organization; offences involving the use or threat of violence or weapons; offences by those previously incarcerated for drug crime; offences in or near schools; offences in prison; and offences involving a child in the commission of the offence.

The proposed amendments in the bill are a welcome aspect of a balanced approach that must, in the end, define our collective response to drug crime in Canada. The safety of our police officers, and indeed of our citizens in general, depends on our success in implementing just such a balanced approach.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Thank you, Chief.

Just to clarify, does CACP mean Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police?

[Barry MacKnight]

Yes, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Thank you.

Now, Ms. Pate, would you be prepared to give us an opening address? You have five minutes.

[Kim Pate, Executive Director, Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies]

Yes, thank you very much.

Thank you for accommodating this. I know it was short notice for all of us, so I appreciate the opportunity to appear.

I'm representing the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies, and we are 26 members across the country, who provide services to women and girls who have been victimized, marginalized, criminalized, and institutionalized.

Like many Canadians, we are extremely concerned about the cost of the proposed law, concerned that the rolling out of all of this legislation will cost many billions of dollars. We're very concerned about how, in fact, this will be paid for.

I want to thank the panellists who went ahead of me, Mr. Sullivan, and Chief MacKnight. We would certainly support their views, as well as those of groups like the Canadian Bar Association, and others who have presented.

We're also extremely concerned that the direction of this bill is to encourage more use of imprisonment—in fact, unprecedented use of imprisonment in Canada—and that the cost of that will detract from other services and resources. It will make prisons more overcrowded, and it will ensure that we have more women, people with mental health issues and, particularly, indigenous people in prison. We're extremely concerned about that.

Canada has a long and proud history of being a defender of human rights and of having a strong criminal justice system, one that is recognized as being among the best internationally, and we're in danger of losing that. We're following a direction that is being rejected by many jurisdictions in the United States, and yet we're heading headlong onto this path.

Rather than speaking to all of the individual portions of the bill, because you've had many excellent representations on those, I would like to speak to a proposed amendment of ours to the bill. That amendment focuses on the fact that many people who are in prison, as has long been recognized by those who run prisons, are not necessarily violent or a risk to public safety, and that some are there largely because of other issues like their mental health or poverty. In situations where they are committing criminal offences and being convicted, there should be opportunities for them to pay back and to be held accountable in the community in a way that isn't a further drain on taxpayers.

We know that most of the services that will be expanded by this bill are policing services and in the federal and provincial prison areas. We know that two of the bills that were introduced last session have already impacted at least 150 to 160 women by Correctional Service Canada's own estimation. Those are significant increases when you see the relatively small number of women serving federal sentences. And we're already seeing overcrowding as the numbers increasing.

I was in an Edmonton institution this past weekend, and it was very overcrowded. They've had to use the visiting area to house women. They've had to use interview rooms from time to time, and they've also had to use the gymnasium.

We know that Quebec has already voiced concerns and that Nunavut, British Columbia, and other provinces are also voicing concerns. We're suggesting that the amendments to the bill be just that until we have a full costing of how the omnibus bill will be funded by the provinces, the territories, and every federal department; until we have a clear understanding of the price tag attached to each piece of the proposed legislation or policy reform included in the bill; and until Parliament can assure taxpayers that the increased costs will be accommodated without exceeding 100% of the capacity at correctional institutions, and without decreasing other resources that are currently available.

So we are suggesting that amendment. We respectfully submit that it should be made a component of the act and that the act not be enacted and brought into force until such time as all provinces, territories, and the respective federal departments to be impacted have signed off that it's affordable. Otherwise, we consider it a breach of the fiduciary obligation that members of Parliament have to taxpayers in this country, to have a clear and transparent understanding of what the cost will be and how it will impact all of us in the future.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Thank you, Ms. Pate.

Mr. Piché, we have five minutes for an opening address, if you wish.

[Justin Piché, Assistant Professor, As an Individual]

Thank you. My name is Justin Piché, and I am an assistant professor of sociology at Memorial University. I am also a Ph.D. candidate in sociology at Carleton University, preparing to defend my dissertation next month, which examines the scope and factors shaping prison expansion at this time.

My remarks today outline some of my findings, which I've included and fully referenced within the brief I submitted to the clerk of your committee, entitled “Prison Expansion in Canada”. I will keep this short.

Prior to the tabling of Bill C-10, the provinces and territories had already earmarked nearly $3.4 billion in recent years to building 22 new prisons and 17 additions to existing facilities to add over 6,300 new prisoner beds. Most of these penal infrastructure projects have been undertaken to cope with persistent facility overcrowding associated with a massive increase in the number and proportion of prisoners awaiting trial and sentencing in provincial and territorial prisons over the past decade and a half.

According to the most recent information provided to me, only Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island, and Ontario have factored federal sentencing measures into their recently completed or ongoing penal infrastructure initiatives.

Bill C-10 contains many measures, including further eligibility restrictions for conditional sentences, and mandatory minimums for drug-related offences under two years, that could potentially lead to a significant increase in provincial and territorial prison populations. If this happens, the provinces and territories may very will find themselves at square one when it comes to facility overcrowding, leading to more prison construction down the road.

I don't have time to get into the federal penal infrastructure component in the five minutes provided to me, but I will ask you whether these are the institutions we should be building in Canada when many of the young people from my generation are accumulating large debts to go to school or are out of work, and people from my parent's generation are entering or nearing retirement, and people from my grandparents' generation are requiring robust health care.

There is a cost to all of this, and we can't lose sight of that.

Our approach to criminalization and victimization in Canada is expensive and ineffective. According to a recent Justice Canada study, the cost of policing, courts, prosecution, legal aid, corrections, and Criminal Code review boards was estimated to be $15 billion in 2008. The study also estimates the tangible costs to victims—in health care, damaged property, productivity losses—and to third parties as $14.3 billion and $2.1 billion respectively. The study also attempts to make tangible the intangible costs of pain, suffering, and loss of life, with an estimate of nearly $68.2 billion. If we build more ineffective prisons that will not prevent victimization in the long term, these costs will only grow.

Irrespective of whether crime, reported or unreported, is going up, down, or remaining stable, no one is disputing that something should be done. However, what the debate needs to focus on is how we can prevent victimization and best address the unique—not uniform—needs of those who are impacted by the complex conflicts and harms in our communities that we call crime, in a manner that is effective and humane, and that provides best value for money to taxpayers.

Given its economic costs, ineffectiveness, and harms it perpetuates, imprisonment ought to be used as a scarce resource to incarcerate only those who are unrepentant and pose an immediate threat to the safety of others. They could have access to the resources they may need one day to safely reintegrate into society rather than encountering the long waiting lists for programs we see in Canadian prisons today.

Moving forward, I strongly recommended that the Government of Canada enact a federal punishment legislation moratorium and adopt a justice reinvestment strategy that would see the moneys allocated for Bill C-10 diverted towards community-based resources to prevent victimization by addressing its root causes.

Prisons are not schools. They are not employment readiness centres. They are not mental health hospitals. They are not drug treatment centres and the like. It's time that we abandoned prison as a panacea, and further invest in our communities.

In the interim, I urge you, in your important work, to ask every provincial-territorial minister of justice and public safety to appear before this committee to disclose the forecast impacts of Bill C-10 on their prison systems, so we can know what we are getting ourselves into.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

You have one minute left.

[Justin Piché]

With that said, I am very much looking forward to the thoughtful and respectful discussion that will follow.

I thank you for your time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Thank you.

We will start with Mrs. Borg.

[Charmaine Borg, NDP, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Thank you very much.

Thanks to the witnesses for being with us today. My first question is for Mr. Piché.

In my riding, there are three federal penitentiaries, one of which, Sainte-Anne-des-Plaines Institution, has already undergone a $10-million expansion, just to accommodate the adjustment to changes that have already been made and the number of criminals who must currently be incarcerated there.

You mentioned other programs in effect, the costs of which are very high. In addition, expansions worth $209.9 million and construction worth $3.1655 billion are currently scheduled in the provinces and territories. The federal government has planned for development costs of $601 million.

I would like to know how much time it will take and how much money it will cost the federal and provincial governments to do this development and to adjust to the measures that will have to be implemented under Bill C-10. In addition, in the meantime, what kind of environment will we have created in the prisons?

[Justin Piché]

In thinking about the impacts of Bill C-10, the problem is that we really don't know what they will be, because the provinces and territories have not advanced their estimates related to this bill. That is why we'd urge your committee to have them appear before you to disclose those costs and what infrastructure plans would be associated with them.

On what's happening federally, we know that between August 2010 and January 2011, they announced the equivalent of 34 additions to existing facilities. These will cost $601 million to construct, on top of the operational and management costs. That's for the Truth in Sentencing Act.

Going forward, I think you need to ask Mr. Head, the commissioner of the CSC, what type of construction they anticipate relating to this bill. I'm not in a position to know because, apparently, the federal government has decided that we don't have a right to know as Canadians.

[Charmaine Borg, NDP, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Thank you for your answer. I have another question for you.

In your speech, you mentioned that there would not be any substantial program expenditures corresponding to the amounts we are spending to expand existing prisons or build new prisons. I would like to know what influence, perhaps what negative influence, that could have on individuals who want to get out of the correctional system and try to rehabilitate.

[Justin Piché]

If I understand the bill correctly, they'll be moving toward a system requiring prisoners to complete all of their programming in order to move through their correctional plans.

In a context where we're spending hundreds of millions of dollars on construction and not making similar investments in programming to that same degree, we will have people on longer waiting lists for those programs. That means we'll have more prisoners inside those institutions without a chance to work their way through their own correctional plans.

The Office of the Correctional Investigator has repeatedly noted that well under 5% of CSC's budget is actually dedicated to programming. This is going to create some problems for people who already have long waiting lists for programs.