Justice Committee on Nov. 23rd, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Ms. Sampson.

[Fiona Sampson, Director of litigation, Women's Legal Education and Action Fund]

Okay, thank you.

Hello. Bonjour.

My name is Fiona Sampson. I am the director of litigation at LEAF, the Women's Legal Education and Action Fund.

I'm here today to talk to you, I understand, for ten short minutes. I have three important points that I want to make, so I'm going to get right into it.

I want to start by telling you a little bit about LEAF and then move into a summary of the three main reasons why LEAF is opposed to the passing of Bill C-10.

LEAF, the Women's Legal Education and Action Fund, is a national non-profit organization that's dedicated to the advancement of women's equality rights in Canada. Primarily, we do that through using section 15 of the charter and the equality guarantees that are included in section 15 of the charter.

Fundamental to our mandate is the understanding, endorsed by the Supreme Court of Canada, that section 15 obligates the federal government both to protect the guaranteed rights against discrimination and to equality found in section 15 and to promote those rights.

Moving to the three main reasons why LEAF is opposed to the introduction and passing of Bill C-10, which are actually outlined in submissions we have forwarded to the justice committee, and I understand they probably aren't before you because they haven't been translated yet, but they are something for you to look forward to—they are coming your way—the first reason LEAF is opposed to Bill C-10 is that Bill C-10 does not reduce violence against women. If the point of Bill C-10 is to reduce violence, it doesn't achieve that with respect to women.

Women experience violence because of their unequal social, economic, and political status in Canada, a status that results in their objectification, their disempowerment, their devaluation, all of which results in the status of second-class citizens, which leaves us vulnerable to violence. That's the cause of violence against women. Bill C-10 and mandatory minimum sentences relating to firearms do nothing to reduce that source of violence against women.

Certainly LEAF supports the reduction of violence and the reduction of crime, but what happens with Bill C-10 and with mandatory minimum sentences attached to firearms is that they come too late to be of any real help to women. They're imposed after the fact. They do nothing to prevent violence, and they come at a time when women have already experienced the violence, so they're really of no value.

Definitely women and LEAF recognize the violence that's associated with guns, and we oppose it. There is an intrinsic link between gun violence and masculinity and violence against women, and that's apparent when you just look at the statistics: 85% of guns in Canada are owned by men and 30% of gun victims in Canada are women. That's something that concerns and distresses LEAF, and LEAF supports gun control to address that concern, and we support measures that get guns off the streets. But having mandatory minimum sentences attached to firearms doesn't address that problem.

Our second main point relating to our opposition to Bill C-10 primarily relates to the disadvantage that's associated with Bill C-10 and that we predict will be felt because of the implementation of Bill C-10.

Bill C-10 is a classic example of the failure of the federal government, were it to pass, to actually protect and promote equality rights, the obligation the Supreme Court has found the federal government has under section 15 of the charter.

What really happens with something like Bill C-10 and the imposition of mandatory minimum sentences attached to firearms is that it targets already disadvantaged groups. If I can draw your attention to.... Well, you don't have the submissions yet, but you will soon. The Report of the Commission on Systemic Racism in the Ontario Criminal Justice System found that black people are already overrepresented among prisoners with weapons possession charges, so we know that with the targeting of firearms crimes by attaching mandatory minimums to those crimes in particular, they will affect black persons disproportionately.

They will also affect aboriginal people disproportionately. We already know that aboriginal people are disproportionately represented in the criminal justice system and in prisons, so they will be further disadvantaged if Bill C-10 is passed, particularly the section of Bill C-10 that relates to the attachment of mandatory minimums to persons who have committed previous offences. If you go to LEAF's submission, footnote 18, we have a whole list of primary and secondary sources available to you to support that. So the evidence is there.

Sometimes proponents of mandatory minimum sentences understand it to be a form of equality, and on one level it can be understood to be a form of equality. It's what we call formal equality; it applies equally to all persons. Another example of formal equality can be seen in a situation where you have a building, and the building has been designed so it's only accessible by stairs. The architects of that design might say that it's equally accessible to everybody, that anyone can get in, that nobody is prevented. There's no sign that says certain groups are excluded. But if you're in a wheelchair, you're essentially excluded. So it looks like it's available to everybody, but in effect it's not.

With mandatory minimum sentences, it's a similar theory you can apply. It looks as if it's applicable to everybody, and it looks as if it's fair, but actually, in effect, what happens is that because it's targeting individuals who are already predisposed to disadvantage, who are already over-criminalized, it results in further disadvantage and, LEAF would argue, discrimination. So that's a problem.

The other reason it can be understood to be inequitable rather than equitable is the pre-existing racism that we know informs and characterizes the criminal justice system in Canada. Every level of court, royal commission, justice inquiry, independent research, and academic research--we have it all--provides evidence that the criminal justice system in Canada is characterized by racism, and that gets perpetuated by mandatory minimum sentences attached to firearms. So that's another problem, and that's another reason why LEAF is opposed to the introduction of Bill C-10.

Really, the problem with Bill C-10 is that it does nothing to promote or protect equality. It only perpetuates disadvantage and inequality, and it really targets and individualizes the problem, rather than addressing the social causes of the problem.

This is the third point that LEAF would like to make in terms of our opposition to Bill C-10. Really, what LEAF identifies as much more preferable to the punitive measures attached to Bill C-10 are preventative measures and looking at the social causes of violence and crime and firearm crimes, in particular. In particular, what we would support are measures that provide for community development and increased education, increased employment opportunities, and improved community development--programs that would promote opportunities for people who are already disadvantaged.

They're definitely long-term solutions. They're definitely not quick fixes, and they're not easy sells. They don't win votes the same way a quick fix like mandatory minimum sentences attached to firearms might sell votes. But they're really much more effective, they're much more long term, and they actually promote and protect equality for disadvantaged persons. So that's why LEAF supports that approach rather than the approach of punitive measures attached through mandatory minimum sentences.

In closing, I'd just like to read a quote by Helene Dumont. It's from her article in the 2001 Osgoode Hall Law Journal, and it really captures LEAF's position on Bill C-10. This is on the cover of our submission, so you'll get a chance to enjoy it for yourself. Helene Dumont writes:

How can our criminal laws better reflect the public's concern for safety, while promoting their desire for a democratic society based on peace, liberty, tolerance and justice? To accomplish this goal, legislators and the Canadian public as a whole, should try to apply more reason than fear in developing criminal law-infrastructure for safety. They must recognize the symbolic and political power of criminal laws, and determine the effectiveness of each punitive measure in terms of securing personal and public safety. Finally, legislators must always choose the solutions that will result in a peaceful, free, tolerant, and just society.

So subject to any questions you might have, those are our submissions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Ms. Sampson.

I'd like to welcome Jonathan Rudin, who's with Aboriginal Legal Services of Toronto. I see you made it through traffic.

[Jonathan Rudin, Program Director, Aboriginal Legal Services of Toronto]

I apologize.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

It's not a problem. That's understood.

I'd like to turn now to Mr. George Biggar for his presentation.

[George Biggar]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and members.

Thank you for inviting me once again. As I expressed to Madame Diotte, I am very grateful that you have come halfway, to the Toronto airport, as last time I had to go the whole way to Ottawa.

Of course, we at LAO don't take a formal position on the merits or otherwise of the proposed legislation. I'm here to respond to the committee's two questions from Mr. MacKay, as I understood them. First is to talk about the anticipated effects on legal aid costs if this bill were passed and implemented. Second is to offer some brief high-level remarks about LAO's general financial situation. The timing is opportune, as we have been in the press this week.

I have been here most of the day, and I heard Chief Blair and the Attorney General this morning. I want to start by recommending to you two of the comments they made this morning.

Chief Blair spoke at length about the guns and gangs prosecutions, the other projects, and the effects they're having in the city of Toronto. He stressed that these prosecutions are having an impact on every part of the justice system. He mentioned that they're imposing tremendous strain on Legal Aid Ontario, and I want to confirm the truth of that statement.

Secondly, when the minister was speaking he supported this bill and said on two occasions that we have to do everything. Legal Aid Ontario supports that statement. We believe that doing everything includes ensuring the defence of these charges, which of course is the statutory right and charter right of the poor accused person facing these charges. I want to support the minister's statement that the defence of these charges is adequately funded.

What we find at Legal Aid is that all justice initiatives create new pressures for more police officers, more jail sentences, longer jail sentences, more wiretap investigations, and more mandatory minimum sentences, which all drive up costs for Legal Aid Ontario, and indeed for all legal aid plans in the country.

When this legislation was first introduced, we in Legal Aid Ontario, working with officials in the Ministry of the Attorney General, tried to calculate what the likely effects on our costs would be. Our best estimate is that this bill will increase costs at Legal Aid Ontario in the range of about $382,000 per year. This is based on hard data and professional analysis. The consensus of Legal Aid and ministry officials is that increased penalties, and especially mandatory minimum penalties, will lead to more trials.

In 2005-06, there were 2,346 firearms charges brought before the courts of Ontario, and particularly before the Ontario Court of Justice--the provincial court that is the level at which all criminal proceedings start. Interestingly, these firearms charges already have a very high trial rate, in that only 17% of accused persons facing these charges actually plead guilty to them. That means in 2005-06 there were approximately 400 pleas of guilty. It's our consensus view that about three-quarters of these cases will likely go to trial as a result of facing mandatory minimum penalties. Additionally, between 2004-05 and 2005-06, we observed that firearms charges increased by about 19% in the Ontario court system.

So in these calculations we assumed there'd be a further 19% increase in 2006-07, which would mean that if the legislation were in effect, there would be 356 extra charges going to trial per year in Ontario. That means 178 new trials, because, on average, in the court system each individual faces two charges, so you take the number of charges and divide it by half to produce the number of individuals who will be going to trial.

For these kinds of offences, approximately 94% of the accused receive a legal aid certificate. For these 178 persons facing these charges, 167 of them are likely to be on legal aid. Looking at our cost data and court data, on average we expect that there will be four days of trial per each case at four hours per day, plus seven hours of preparation time, and therefore a total of 25 extra hours per case.

In total, it's 25 hours times 167 trials times $83.10 per hour, the middle Legal Aid rate, for a total estimated cost of $346,900. In these calculations it's normal to add a factor for administration. Legal Aid Ontario's administration factor is 10%. That produces a total of a little under $382,000. We hope the Minister of Justice will keep that figure in mind when it comes time to renew the federal-provincial criminal legal aid cost-sharing agreement, because that kind of number will be repeated across the country.

The other topic I was asked to comment on was the financial pressures facing Legal Aid Ontario. I know from speaking to colleagues across the country that all legal aid plans are facing financial pressures, but particularly Legal Aid Ontario feels very severe pressure at the present time.

In the short term, you may have been aware of press releases to the effect that as of the end of the first six months of the year, Legal Aid Ontario is $10 million over budget in the certificate program. That is the program that includes criminal coverage. I can tell you that our analysis of that indicates that it is caused significantly by the pressures of the guns and gangs and project prosecutions that you have been hearing about this morning. In fact, we anticipate that without action the cost to Legal Aid could be as much $10 million higher than budgeted for, for the big-case part of our certificate program.

Our budget for that program for this year is about $19 million. At the moment, it looks as if we will be spending $25 million, and if we had taken no action in relation to these charges, we expect we could well be spending as much as $29 million or $30 million this year. In itself, it's a $10 million pressure in this year. That's the short term.

On the longer term, we face ongoing criminal pressures from criminal and family caseloads. Our demand is driven by the number of people coming into the court system. The levels of criminal court activity are rising generally throughout the province.

New court criminal proceedings have risen from 540,000 new charges in 2003-04 to 580,000 in 2005-06, and the increase continues this year, one of the main reasons being the hiring of 1,000 new police officers throughout the province. This means that criminal certificates have risen from under 61,000 two years ago to 65,500 in the same timeframe last year, and that pressure continues intensely.

We operate within a limited budget. We have a targeted number of certificates that we are permitted to issue each year. The increases and the pressures in criminal law are constraining our ability to meet demands in other areas of certificate law, in particular family law.

Family court proceedings are increasing and have risen, for example, by 6% between 2004-05 and 2005-06. This puts increased pressure on the certificate program. In order to manage this, our family law refusal rates--the percentage of people applying for legal aid for family matters--are now at 35% of applicants.

In addition, we face variable revenue levels, and next year we anticipate a reduction in revenue from the law foundation as a result of changes in interest rates and economic activity. We expect there will be a decrease in the realm of $8 million to $10 million.

In recent years, LAO has not had an increase in its core funding. We have absorbed $44 million in inflation and salary increase costs within the same core funding. However, as the Attorney General said this morning, LAO has received an increase of $25 million in its budget in the last four years, but this is in fact funding tied to specific increases in the duty counsel program to fund the creation of the criminal law staff offices and to fund the tariff increases that were passed in 2002 and 2003.

LAO has no reserves or savings left, so we are facing quite a steep precipice immediately driven by guns and gangs and other project cases. This bill will add to the financial pressures we face, and we hope that Parliament will recognize that and approve increased funding for the federal-provincial criminal cost-sharing agreements.

So just to repeat, we face short-term pressures, long-term demand pressures, no increase in core funding, and variable revenues. It's a difficult situation.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Mr. Biggar.

Mr. Rudin, I know you have some comments in reference to the aboriginal legal services.

[Jonathan Rudin]

Thank you.

Again, I apologize for my lateness. I also apologize on behalf of Marisha Roman, our vice-president, who was with me last month in Ottawa. She very much wanted to be here today as well, but she came down with the flu this morning, had to leave work, and was not able to make it.

We are very pleased to be appearing here again before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Since our last appearance before you was just a month ago, we'll dispense with the background information on our organization, as we trust it's relatively fresh in your mind. We first want to thank the members of the committee for its consideration of our submissions regarding Bill C-9.

We're here today to discuss Bill C-10, a bill that amends the Criminal Code. Prior to commenting specifically on these amendments, we feel it's important to address what is, for us, the disturbing trend of the increasing reliance on minimum sentences in the Criminal Code.

This trend did not begin with the current government. Bill C-2, passed in the last Parliament, added minimum sentences to 11 sexual offences. In some cases, the minimum sentences were as low as 14 days. It appears that often the only explanation for the imposition of a minimum sentence is to prevent judges from considering a conditional sentence. Minimum sentences of 14 to 90 days cannot seriously be justified for their ability to deter crime or to lead to a change in behaviour of offenders while incarcerated.

In our discussion before the justice committee last month, we spoke about the ability that judges have to craft conditional sentences that can address the root causes of offending behaviour without sacrificing community safety. In fact, a well-crafted conditional sentence will lead to increased community safety. Unfortunately, increased reliance on minimum sentences means there is less room for conditional sentences.

We would like to raise four specific concerns with respect to Bill C-10 and make one suggested amendment. Our concerns are: one, we believe the manner in which the bill deals with hybrid offences is unconstitutional; two, too many minimum sentences start with penitentiary terms; three, there is no reason to believe that minimum sentences deter crime; and four, the bill will increase aboriginal overrepresentation in prison. Our suggested amendment is that the bill allow for a judge to avoid the imposition of a minimum sentence in exceptional circumstances.

We will start with our concerns.

At our last appearance before the committee, we noted that one of the problems with Bill C-9 was that it gave the Crown the ability to decide whether an offender could receive a conditional sentence, based on whether the Crown proceeded summarily or by indictment. This problem is even more acute in Bill C-10. A number of offences in Bill C-10 are hybrid offences. There are no minimums if the Crown proceeds summarily. There are minimums if the Crown proceeds by indictment. In some cases, these minimums start at three years' imprisonment.

For example, a first-time offender charged with unauthorized possession of a prohibited or restricted weapon that is loaded or near ammunition will, if the Crown proceeds summarily, have all sentencing options available. On the other hand, if the Crown, in its sole discretion, chooses to prosecute by indictment, the minimum sentence is three years' imprisonment.

Such an arrangement places a great deal of unchecked power in the hands of the Crown. It also raises very serious concerns that the section violates the protection against cruel and unusual punishment found in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We will participate in any constitutional challenge against these provisions of Bill C-10.

Secondly, we are concerned by the increased number of minimum sentences that start at three years' imprisonment. While there are some individuals who, for public safety, must be sentenced to penitentiary time, this bill casts the net too wide. Members of this committee should be under no illusion that a three-year sentence will lead to positive change in the lives of offenders. Information we have received from Correctional Service Canada in Ontario indicates that individuals sentenced to two- to three-year sentences will receive no substantive programming at all in penitentiary prior to their release.

This bill will result in some individuals with little or no prior involvement with the criminal justice system going directly to the penitentiary. Being incarcerated with the most dangerous offenders in Canada will give these people the opportunity to learn new skills, but not, unfortunately, the skills we would want them to learn.

We have to be realistic about what happens to people when they go to penitentiary. In most cases, they come out worse than when they went in.

Third, at the heart of this bill is the belief that minimum sentences deter people from crime. Since much of this bill is concerned with increasing the minimum sentences for offences where minimum sentences already exist, the assumption must be that higher minimum sentences deter people even more. The fundamental problem with this theory is that there is no evidence to support it. Studies by the eminent British criminologists Andrew Ashworth and Andrew von Hirsch both concluded that deterrence in the criminal justice system comes from the probability of detection rather than consideration of potential punishment.

The penalty for first degree murder is life imprisonment without parole for 25 years, yet despite this most severe mandatory minimum sentence, gun violence and gun death were quite prominent last year. If a 25-year mandatory minimum did not deter the most serious of gun crimes, why should we expect that shorter minimums would accomplish the task?

Our final concern with the bill relates to aboriginal overrepresentation. It must always be kept in mind that reliance on deterrence as a theory for punishment has a significant impact on aboriginal people. As we noted last month, despite making up only 3% of the Canadian population, aboriginal people comprise 22% of those in Canadian prisons. Aboriginal people know better than anyone else that doing the crime means doing the time, yet rates of aboriginal over-incarceration continue to rise. In large part, this is because much of aboriginal offending is not calculated organized crime, but rather an unthinking response to immediate pressures. Addictions, interpersonal violence, a sense of hopelessness, and the legacy of government practices such as residential school and mass adoptions all play a large role in explaining why aboriginal people commit crime. This does not excuse the behaviour, but we need to understand that the threat of minimum sentences will do nothing to address the root causes of aboriginal offending. It will merely lead to more aboriginal people being sent to jail for longer and longer periods of time.

Why should Canadians care that our jails are becoming increasingly the preserve of aboriginal people? After all, if aboriginal people commit crimes, why should they be exempt from jail, the most serious sanction the criminal justice system provides?

To answer these questions it's helpful to return again to the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Gladue. When discussing aboriginal overrepresentation, the court said:

These findings cry out for recognition of the magnitude and gravity of the problem, and for responses to alleviate it. The figures are stark and reflect what may fairly be termed a crisis in the Canadian criminal justice system. The drastic overrepresentation of aboriginal peoples within both the Canadian prison population and the criminal justice system reveals a sad and pressing social problem.

Aboriginal overrepresentation speaks to the failure of the criminal justice system to address the root causes of aboriginal offending. The result of paragraph 718.2(e) and the Gladue decision has not been that aboriginal people have stopped going to jail.

Both paragraph 718.2(e) and Gladue speak of the need for restraint in the use of incarceration for everyone. In fact, it has been non-aboriginal people who have been the primary beneficiaries of these initiatives. A study by Julian Roberts and Ron Melchers showed that from 1997 to 2001 the rate of aboriginal incarceration rose by 3% while the rate of non-aboriginal incarceration decreased by 27%. Similar results have been found in examining the impact of sentencing changes in the Youth Criminal Justice Act. Despite specific admonitions in legislation, the judges need to look for alternatives for aboriginal offenders. It is non-aboriginal people who are seeing the greatest decline in incarceration rates.

Please rest assured that we are not urging that more non-aboriginal people be jailed, but it is vital that you be aware that the impact of moves to make the criminal justice system more punitive will fall disproportionately on aboriginal people.

Jail has proven itself to be singularly incapable of resolving the social problems that are at the root of aboriginal offending. More jail will be similarly ineffective.

These concerns lead to our proposed amendments to the legislation. We suggest that the bill give judges an option to not impose a minimum sentence in exceptional circumstances. Such a provision will go a long way to meeting objections that the law is unconstitutional and would allow judges to consider other sentencing provisions, such as contained in paragraph 718.2(e) of the code, in situations where to impose a minimum sentence would be clearly unjust in the circumstances.

For almost 20 years, royal commissions, judicial inquiries, parliamentary committees, and decisions at all levels of courts in Canada have urged that the problems of aboriginal overrepresentation be addressed. For every small step forward, we confront great obstacles pushing us back. Sadly, Bill C-10 is another example of a serious step back.

We urge this committee to move away from increasing reliance on minimum sentences. If we are serious about wanting to make our communities safer, we need to do more than lock people up. We need to ensure that there are programs in place in the community to address the root causes of criminal behaviour. We need to have programs in place in correctional facilities to do the same.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Mr. Rudin.

I will turn to questions now. Mr. Bagnell.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Thank you, and thank you all for coming today.

I have a huge aboriginal population, so, Mr. Rudin, your presentation is probably, for me, the most important of all our witnesses. I agree with almost everything you said, so I'll not necessarily ask you all the questions.

I would like to ask Fiona this. There were a couple of things I was quite surprised at and there was something I totally didn't understand when you talked about discrimination. I want to see if I got this right. Did you say that because a person has offended, when they come out they are more likely to offend again, and therefore because they are going to have a higher sentence as a reoffender, under Bill C-10 they would be discriminated against as a person in our society?

[Fiona Sampson]

No, not so much at all.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

What was your discrimination point?

[Fiona Sampson]

The discrimination we would predict would be experienced through Bill C-10 is the fact that the effect of Bill C-10 will be felt by people who are already disadvantaged. It would be felt by people who are already over-criminalized, which includes the group of racialized persons, aboriginal persons, and also disabled persons.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Okay. I have a lot of questions. That is good. I got that point.

Some native women in very remote native communities have said to me--as much as all you have said is right--it is really bad for them, especially if it is sexual assault or something like that, when the offender is put back in the same tiny community where they are hundreds of miles from anywhere else. It is very hard on them and it is not sustainable.

Could both you and Mr. Rudin comment on that?

This would certainly be the effect of Bill C-9, but also Bill C-10. Obviously, the offender could easily be back next door to the person he offended, more quickly without these laws.

[Fiona Sampson]

I think this goes to the last point I was attempting to make, which was the low support for preventative measures. Incapacitation, incarceration, is a short-term measure and may provide some immediate short-term relief in terms of removal of the offender from the community. In terms of a long-term answer, it doesn't provide any kind of resolution to the long-term problem, whereas investment in the community, in education, and in employment opportunities and all that would do that.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Great.

Mr. Biggar, I think it is right, but something astonished me. Did you say that of 178 cases that ultimately would go to court, 167 of those 178 would need legal aid?

[George Biggar]

Yes, for this particular category of offence.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

To me, that is absolutely astonishing. It means that poor people are either discriminated against in getting caught, or they are discriminated against in getting charged, or they are creating almost all the crimes. Is that true?

[George Biggar]

I'm trying to stick to data that I'm aware of, rather than subjective impressions, but it is certainly our experience in Legal Aid that the criminal population is by and large quite poor. I don't have hard data for that.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Well, 167 out of 178 is hard data, and it's astonishing.

[George Biggar]

The overall coverage rate of adults with certificates in the criminal justice system is more like 25%, in the sense that we issue, for example, 65,000 criminal certificates a year in Ontario, but there are between about 250,000 and 300,000 accused persons entering the criminal justice system in Ontario per year. So our overall average coverage rate is about 25%, but for these types of serious offences, the coverage rate is very high.

One of the reasons for that--I have one more sentence, if I may--is that a very high percentage of these people are detained in custody pending their trial, and people who make application from custody are almost always successful. They have no assets, they have no jobs, so they are financially eligible, and they are very highly likely to face incarceration if convicted of the crime.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Rudin, are you a lawyer?

[Jonathan Rudin]

Yes, I am.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

As both you and the head of the RCMP said, if a person goes to jail, they are more likely to be hardened criminals and learn their trade even more. I would assume this would even be exacerbated for someone from Nunavut or the far north or the wilderness who had never seen a criminal before and who went into these hardened penitentiaries down south. They would learn a lot more things that—

[Jonathan Rudin]

Yes, that's very true, and as well, sadly, one of the results of aboriginal overrepresentation, particularly in the western provinces, is that many of the jails out west are essentially run by members of some aboriginal gangs, so someone who goes into a jail and is not affiliated is going to be affiliated by the time they come out, if they want to survive.