Justice Committee on May 25th, 2009

[Don Head]

I'll get to that.

So it's not just that we're at 10% double-bunking population levels.

In terms of the money piece, over the last several years we've received an infusion of money for various issues. One we received, and it has been ongoing into our base now, is $2 million for what is called integrity funding, which addresses--

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

How much is that?

[Don Head]

It's $2 million.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

That's $2 million out of a total budget of....?

[Don Head]

I haven't finished. There are a whole bunch of other things I'll list. So our total budget is $2.3 billion, of which the vast majority is staff salaries. We receive $2 million for issues related to literacy and for ethnocultural programming, and to address some issues around categories of offenders, such as long-term supervision orders.

We've also received, as a result of this year's budget, 2009, a reinvestment that will start off at $14 million this year and ramp up over the next three years to $48 million for additional programs, specifically in the areas of violence prevention programming, community maintenance programming, and aboriginal programming, the pathways programs for aboriginal offenders. So we've received...[Technical difficulty--Editor]

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

[Technical difficulty--Editor]...accommodation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you.

We'll go to Mr. Lemay.

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

I will stay on the same track as Ms. Jennings.

Mr. Head, amounts of money are allocated to you when someone has been convicted and sentenced. Can we agree on that?

[Don Head]

Yes.

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

Your role starts when a person enters a penitentiary. Do we agree?

[Don Head]

Yes, that is correct.

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

Bill C-25 has nothing to do with that whatsoever. Bill C-25 does not affect you; it affects the provinces because they are the ones with the chicken coops full of detainees in pre-sentencing custody. There are two lawyers here. Do the provincial budgets.... I am talking about Ontario because you, Mr. Schreck, are from Ontario. Have you seen any improvements? Do detainees in pre-sentencing custody receive any services?

[Andras Schreck]

No.

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

So detainees in pre-sentencing custody are two, three and four to a cell. It is clear that that is the current situation. Nothing is going to get better, and there are no plans to make things better. You have not seen any of that.

[Andras Schreck]

No, I haven't seen any improvement. There's ebb and flow; things get worse, then things are not as bad. But there certainly hasn't been any improvement.

Labour disputes are frequent, especially in Ontario, in terms of the union that represents the correctional officers. Whenever that happens, there are slowdowns, and there's a direct effect on the conditions of the prisoners. That seems to be a fairly regular occurrence.

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

Do you have a ruling on that matter? If you have one, I would love to see it. Has anyone thought to approach the Canadian Human Rights Commission for a decision?

Mr. Head, I am not sure that this applies to you necessarily, but has the Ontario Bar Association, or perhaps Mr. Alexander, thought to go before the Canadian Human Rights Commission? Have there been any decisions on the fact that, from a legal standpoint, these people should have individual cells and should be receiving services while they await sentencing?

[Andras Schreck]

I'm not aware of any decisions by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal on that issue.

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

Mr. Chair, I cannot ask each of the previous witnesses separately because my colleague used his time carefully to ask questions, but if anyone listening in the room has those decisions—and I would like you to check with the Ontario Bar Association whether there were any such decisions—I would really like copies so they can be submitted for the committee's future consideration.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you, Monsieur Lemay.

We'll move on to Mr. Norlock.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, just for the edification of some of the witnesses, because there was some suggestion at the first part of this meeting that perhaps provinces weren't in favour of this change in legislation, I have a couple of quotes here. The first is from the justice minister of the Province of Nova Scotia, as reported in The Chronicle Herald, March 28, 2009:

It's going to help because in some cases there's incentive to keep people in remand, to delay the process by some of the defence counsel so that people are in remand, and in some cases, it's not just two for one, it can be two and a half and sometimes three or more. That’s not appropriate and that’s why we agree with the Government of Canada.

The next quote is from the Minister of Justice of Alberta, Alison Redford, who said:

What this will do is allow us to correctly move these cases more effectively through the courts.

And then there was this comment from Dr. Matt Logan, an expert on sexual offences, which was given to this committee:

I took two years out of my career and went to jail as a psychologist for CSC, and I'll tell you that the two-for-one is a scam. The people who are pulling the two-for-ones are clogging the court system and just backing it up even further. So I was extremely gratified to see the two-for-one disappear.

I have other comments, but they're from police officers, and oftentimes they don't really count that much.

But the biggest comments I receive are from the people in my riding, the average person in the street who doesn't have an association, who doesn't have what I call “high-priced help”. They just don't understand why these things are happening.

Here's what they don't understand, and this comes from the Niagara Falls Review. The case isn't completed, so I'll refrain from making any significant remarks, except to quote from the newspaper article from seven months ago.

It has to do with a gentleman who is accused of a criminal organizational charge. There are lots of facts in here--according to the newspaper, of course. This gentleman, who is a single father and has two children, has been in custody since his arrest two years ago. He remains a member of the Hells Angels, but he told the court he's hoping to retire. He's charged with significant offences, some of which he's pled not guilty to, some of which he has pled guilty to. But I understand that the court has decided that for those charges he is being convicted of, the judge will credit him with four years and four months of pretrial custody. And of course this is seven months old, so he was two years in custody.

These are the kinds of news reports, Mr. Alexander, that people phone people like me with to say we have to do something about it. Then we come to committee, and we have the defence counsel telling us that whatever we're going to do is going to make the situation worse. But in the eyes of the public, the situation's not good now anyway.

Of course, in my riding, as Mr. Head would know, I have Canada's largest federal penitentiary, the medium-security penitentiary. People hear only about the bad things that go on there, but Mr. Head knows that a lot of good things are happening there; for example, there is a newly constructed first nations separate dwelling--I think it's a pathways program. The people who were there tell me that they expect to have a lot of success because the Correctional Service of Canada is doing a good job. With a couple of exceptions, people who have taken some of the courses in that federal penitentiary, especially the sandblasting course, never come back.

So despite the fact that there are some programming needs, and a lot of programing that we'd like, what we do have is working because we have some professionals.

The men and women who worked in that correctional facility before we took government hadn't had their contract renewed in five years. How do you expect men and women to go to work every day and function properly...and they do, by the way, because they are professional. But you have to properly deal with them.

Mr. Alexander, my question--and hopefully we can be a little bit succinct--is this. Are the justice minister of Nova Scotia and the justice minister of the Province of Alberta and Dr. Matt Logan wrong?

[Paul Alexander]

The simple answer is yes, but I have a more nuanced answer for you, sir.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Can you be really brief, because we are out of time?

[Paul Alexander]

Yes.

You mentioned that the programs at the Correctional Service of Canada facility in your riding are good and they reduce recidivism. That's exactly the point that I, as a defence counsel, am making. That's a federal penitentiary where you go after you're sentenced. There are programs there, and to the extent that those programs exist, they work.

The problem is that where you spend time before you are sentenced, a provincial remand facility, is best described as a hellhole. They call it the bucket. There are no programs there. It's harder time and that's why you're entitled to more credit.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you.

Mr. Norlock, we're done. Thank you.

I want to thank all of our witnesses for appearing. Unfortunately, our time was too short. We would have loved to have had more questions. We thank you in any event.

Before you leave, committee members, let me raise a couple of points. First, a motion was tabled with the committee by the government. At this time the government isn't proceeding with it. It has to do with limiting debate. We're having ongoing discussions on Bill C-15, and we're working with the NDP and the Bloc to see if we can get it all wrapped up on Wednesday when we do clause-by-clause.

Second, we have a Czech delegation that has requested a meeting with us. The proposal is that on June 1, this coming Monday, we would meet with them between 5:30 and 6:30 after we've finished our committee business. We would order in supper.

What's your wish? We haven't committed to doing it, but they have requested to discuss justice issues with us.

Monsieur Ménard.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Do they want to meet with us to discuss how the justice system works in general or organized crime in particular?