Justice Committee on Nov. 8th, 2006

[Ross Toller]

For the percentage of people who offend violently while under supervision, yes, 2.4% plus 0.7% plus 0.6%.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

So for either the 250 people that we're talking about, according to Mr. McCowan's testimony or what you're projecting, or the 5,000 people that the other witness was talking about, we're really talking about 3% of all of those folks, either number, who would offend violently while on community supervision of some kind?

[Ross Toller]

Again, that would not have been factored into our projections. Our projections just dealt with what that would be for the total number of inmates if the legislation came. We didn't look that far.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

But what I'm trying to get at here is that either we have 250 offenders or we have 5,000 offenders--and who knows which it is--and of those pools of offenders, about 3% offend violently while under some form of community supervision. Is that a correct statement?

[Ross Toller]

That's correct.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

And then add to that for me the number or the percentage of people who would commit other non-violent crimes, which would result in their being returned to prison.

[Ross Toller]

Of those on day parole, 3.3% ended with a non-violent offence; under full parole, 3.2% ended with a non-violent offence; and under statutory release, 7.6% ended with a non-violent offence.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Among the 3.3% or 3.2% or 7.6%, describe for me the most frequent kind of offence that results in their returning to prison.

[Ross Toller]

I don't have that broken down by frequency, but the violent offences that we talk about are often the most violent, major assault or murder, for starters.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

I thought we had already eliminated that in the 3%.

[Ian McCowan]

I'm sorry. Your question was to ask for a breakdown of the types of offences. I don't have that here with me.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Am I to assume that it's that 3% of all those people who are on some form of community sentencing who are the ones precipitating this legislation?

[Ian McCowan]

I don't know that we can speak to what it is that's precipitating—

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

What's got people worked up is that people are out on some form of community supervision, they commit a violent offence, and it offends the community's sensibilities.

Are we simply talking about a pool of 3%?

[Ross Toller]

We're talking about 3% of those under release, yes. What I'm saying here is that of our current population, those who offend violently while under supervision represent 2.4%, 0.7%, and 0.6%.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Mr. McKay.

Mr. Moore.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for being here.

I think one of the problems, as I see it, when we talk about cost to the taxpayer--and I appreciate all the numbers you've provided, and thank you for your testimony--is that when we look at things from a public policy perspective, my thought is that we don't look just at the gross cost of something; we have to look at the net cost to taxpayers. I'm not necessarily looking for a response on this. I think one of the things we were taking into account when drafting this legislation was that there is a cost.

I was speaking to some individuals in Toronto, where they specifically targeted a certain gang in one neighbourhood. They had rounded up this gang and put them in prison. They saw a noticeable decline, almost a 100% decline, in the gun violence that had been taking place in that neighbourhood.

The members opposite have been doing all kinds of math and number crunching and so on, and that's important. But I think it's unfortunate when our only thought that seems to be going into something is some sort of dollar figure that we assess. What will it cost us to put this individual in prison? The logic I get from the members opposite seems to be, “Well, that sounds expensive, so we'd better not do it.”

The thinking we've put into it, and that I think Canadians have put into it, is that there's also a cost to having people who are dangerous out on the streets. And sometimes that cost is not measured in dollars; it's measured in lives, in broken families, and so on, when people have been victimized.

I do want to make that point, because there seems to be this obsession with number crunching. You can do your best job at estimating. I appreciate that you've done that. But no one, including the members opposite, is going to be capable of knowing exactly the cost, one way or another. But we do our best to get that estimate.

I'm wondering if you can just let the committee know some of the reasons for the difference between maximum/medium or maximum/minimum. What are some of the extra precautions that are in place for those maximum positions, and can you elaborate on that disparity?

[Ross Toller]

If I could, there is a difference between our security levels. Our maximum security level institutions have very restricted movement and control and surveillance in the interior of these types of establishments. Therefore, there is a continuous, ongoing, higher operational cost associated with the security factors necessary in being responsible in maximum security. Maximum security also has a very strong perimeter that is protected either by fences or by a system of detection and a system of response.

A medium security level institution would have a perimeter that is just as strong as the maximum security level institution, and the interior would still have controls and barriers, but they would be less stringent than what you would find in a maximum security level institution. Therefore, again, your operational cost would be somewhat reduced as a result of the maintenance of the operation.

Similarly, in a minimum security institution, while there is a defined perimeter, there is not a containment factor, such as a fence. But there are operational costs associated with managing minimum. The reason, I think, as Mr. McCallum pointed out a bit earlier, that the costs currently reflect a higher cost in the minimums than in the mediums is simply because the number of inmates right now in minimum security is significantly down. Our maximum security facilities right now are full. Our medium security levels are currently full. Minimum is where we have bed space. So if you divide the costs associated with the average, that's why the numbers are different.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Thank you.

We did see an outburst across the way, but I think the line of questioning of my colleagues was entirely appropriate, because we've seen other bills. A bill is taken to committee and then together we make changes. Would you agree that any change we make to this bill could change your bottom-line estimate of what the cost is going to be? If we make some change, if we strengthen the bill or weaken the bill, it'll make a corresponding change to your estimate.

[Ian McCowan]

Depending on the nature of the change, it could well have an impact, yes.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

That's why I find it entirely relevant, if we're trying to gain a perspective on where the opposition is coming from, to study what they were saying a few months ago when the Liberals wanted to double the mandatory minimum sentences to eight years and the NDP wanted to apply a four-year mandatory minimum sentence for all gun-related crime, which actually in fact goes beyond what this bill does. I did want to get that on the record. It's a little alarming, on this side, to see such a violent reaction that we would bring up what your position was so we can try to gauge what the final cost of this bill is going to be, that we might suggest we would take into account what your views are. We're working here in a cooperative fashion, so we need to take into account everyone's views, because at the end of the day, this bill will be framed by everyone's views.

I do appreciate your testimony and that any changes we make would ultimately impact on the bottom line that you've put forward.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Mr. Moore.

I have one question for the witnesses.

The minister yesterday made it very clear that the bill before us, Bill C-10, is designed to target a certain element, folks who go out and use guns and commit violent acts with those guns. When Corrections Canada did their analysis...you're obviously looking at the higher end of those who are going to commit certain kinds of violent crime. Would not the majority of them fall into the maximum security level if you weighed them all out? Of these 270, wouldn't the majority of them be in the maximum?

[Ian McCowan]

Yes, Mr. Chairman. Of the 270, we're projecting 82 in maximum, 164 in medium, and 24 in minimum. The majority is in medium, but there is a good chunk in maximum also. If it's helpful, Mr. Chairman, I'm happy to build those projections into the summary document that we can forward to the committee to flesh out the costing information that we were discussing this afternoon.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Yes, would you do that, please? I'll make sure the committee gets it then.

Mr. Lemay, you have the final line of questions.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

I will go easy, Mr. Chairman. I'll try not to get carried away and to remain calm, because the position of the Bloc Québécois has always been quite clear with regard to certain bills, except this one and a few others.

I have a question. I also sit on the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. Mr.Bagnell briefly touched on this question earlier, but I would like to go a bit further.

Have you compiled any figures on Aboriginal inmates? Currently, do you have any Aboriginal inmates in your penitentiaries? If so, how many?