Evidence of meeting #5 for Justice and Human Rights in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was c-10.
A recording is available from Parliament.
10:30 a.m.
NDP
Charmaine Borg NDP Terrebonne—Blainville, QC
This legislation does not set out any increase with regard to the programs in which prisoners may participate. In talking to experts, I understand that there is already a long wait-list of prisoners who want access to these programs.
If someone truly wants to be rehabilitated when they get out of prison, but they cannot do so because there are no scheduled increases to these programs even if the prison population is increasing, in your opinion, what impact will this situation have?
10:30 a.m.
Executive Director, John Howard Society of Canada
I believe that you are probably hearing from the same people I'm hearing from, who believe that there should be more access to programs within the custodial facilities. We strongly support additional resources being given to CSC to continue and to expand the programs and to make them more available, particularly those dealing with mental health, drug addictions, and skill sets—employment opportunities and a variety of things such as that.
There is no doubt that the more inmates packed into a facility, the less access you're going to have to the programs. Crowding has a profound effect on a variety of things, including access to family visits and access to programming. It is very detrimental to the good efforts that CSC and other correctional facilities can be making to rehabilitate and reintegrate, if they're struggling with dealing with more inmates than the facility was intended to house.
10:30 a.m.
NDP
Charmaine Borg NDP Terrebonne—Blainville, QC
Do you believe that it would be fair to say that the same applies to pardons?
10:30 a.m.
Executive Director, John Howard Society of Canada
Do you mean, to say the same thing with respect to pardons, that there are problems of access to pardons?
Yes, I think—
10:30 a.m.
NDP
Charmaine Borg NDP Terrebonne—Blainville, QC
There is also the fact that the three-year period will be eliminated.
10:30 a.m.
Executive Director, John Howard Society of Canada
I think there are problems with access to pardons now. As Mr. Jackson pointed out, many of the people who would be entitled to a pardon, based on their statutory entitlement, are waiting for two or three years for these pardons to be processed.
I also think the change in pardon fees will create a wealth-based access to a pardon. Once somebody has a pardon, under the Canadian Human Rights Act and provincial statutes they are relieved from discrimination for having a criminal record. So you're denying people who might well be entitled on the merits to get access to these human rights protections, because of the delays and because of the fee structure they're going to introduce.
So there are lots of problems with access to pardons, yes.
10:35 a.m.
Conservative
Kyle Seeback Conservative Brampton West, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Ms. Latimer, I want to go back to a couple of the comments you made in your opening statement: one, that this legislation is going to make our streets less safe; two, that increased penalties do not deter crime; and three, that this will massively increase the prison population.
One of the things that we continuously hear from people who come to this committee to advocate on behalf of criminals is that our communities are made less safe because the principle of deterrence doesn't work. But what you constantly fail to identify is that there are two types of deterrence. There is general deterrence, which means a penalty will cause a person to say “I perhaps should not commit this crime”, but there is also specific deterrence, which means that this person is in jail and therefore will not victimize other people in Canadian society.
Would you not agree with me that when somebody is in prison, they are therefore specifically deterred from further victimizing people in Canadian society?
10:35 a.m.
Executive Director, John Howard Society of Canada
We generally refer to that as incapacitation: you're actually removing someone from society who is dangerous, and therefore they're posing less of a risk. I don't think it has much, actually, to do with deterrence.
Deterrence would kick in if the person, because of experiencing the penalty, decided not to offend in the future because of having learned accountability and having chosen not to reoffend in the future. There is some element of that, but it is certainly augmented if the person is given the benefit of rehabilitative programming and is encouraged to address some of the underlying conditions, such as drug addiction and others, that may be informing the criminal conduct.
10:35 a.m.
Conservative
Kyle Seeback Conservative Brampton West, ON
That's just semantics, “incapacitated” versus “specific deterrence”. When a person is incapacitated, they are specifically deterred from committing crimes against Canadians; de facto, does that not mean that Canadians are safer because that violent criminal is not walking among us and therefore able to commit further violent crimes?
10:35 a.m.
Executive Director, John Howard Society of Canada
I don't want to argue the semantics, but the evidence is that if you take two similarly situated offenders and put one in custody and give the other a community-based sentence—to hold both of them fairly accountable for their offences—the one who is given the community-based sentence does much better at not reoffending at the end of the day than the one who is given the custodial sentence.
You're really putting an emphasis on short-term measures as opposed to longer-term protection of society. We at the John Howard Society are very interested in the longer-term protection of society, not just the short-term protection of society.
10:35 a.m.
Conservative
Kyle Seeback Conservative Brampton West, ON
With respect to massively increasing the inmate population, this committee heard in the previous session the same type of hyperbole with regard to elimination of two-for-one and three-for-one sentencing. We were told that this is going to massively increase the prison population. I don't know whether that was the testimony that you gave or not, but we heard it.
Well, we heard from the Minister of Public Safety a few weeks ago. He explained—and maybe Mr. Head can correct me, if my figures are wrong—that the prison population only went from 14,200 to 14,600.
So if you're making these same statements again, what is the evidentiary, empirical basis for making that statement? Or is this just a case of saying, we are going to say the same things we said the last time?
10:35 a.m.
Executive Director, John Howard Society of Canada
That's a very interesting point.
What we had been advised—I defer of course to Commissioner Head—is that the federal population base since about March 2010 has gone up by 800 to 1,000 inmates. That's two full penitentiaries worth of inmates being compressed into the existing infrastructure.
That is modest compared with the impact it's having in the provinces in increasing their prison populations. So I invite you to ask the corrections authorities from the provinces to come and give testimony as to the impact of these measures on their facilities and what they anticipate the likely outcome will be with this omnibus bill.
10:35 a.m.
Conservative
Kyle Seeback Conservative Brampton West, ON
If I have any time left, I'll share it with Mr. Woodworth.
10:35 a.m.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
I want to go back to Mr. Head to see whether he has an answer to my question about the additional money the minister was talking about, over and above $34 million.
Do you know what other department or what other spending the minister was talking about?
10:35 a.m.
Commissioner, Correctional Service of Canada
To be honest, I'd have to defer to the Minister of Justice on that.
10:40 a.m.
NDP
Françoise Boivin NDP Gatineau, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair. My questions are for Commissioner Head.
I have been hearing the figures since I began sitting on this committee and religiously reading the documentation provided, and I heard the minister's speech, to which you refer in the report you have tabled and in your comments.
The cost of Bill C-10 for the federal government will be $78.6 million. You estimate your needs at $34 million in new funding to manage the consequences of this bill. I am also looking at some reports according to which the costs for Correctional Services Canada have increased from $1.6 billion in 2005-2006 to $2.98 billion in 2010-2011, which equals an 86% increase. This figure is even expected to double. I am trying to reconcile all these figures.
How can you tell us today that Bill C-10 will cost you $34 million? You are talking about consequences. What consequences are you referring to? What have you seen, since 2005, in terms of increased costs for services?
October 18th, 2011 / 10:40 a.m.
Commissioner, Correctional Service of Canada
In terms of the larger figures you refer to, the most significant increase in our budget has come as a result of the tackling violent crime bill and the bill regarding the two-for-one sentencing. That's where we saw the largest increase in our budget, both on an operating cost level and a construction level. We have about 37 living unit construction projects under way across the country.
Relating to Bill C-10, as you know, there are a number of bills in there. There are two sub-bills, I guess we'll call them, that have direct impacts on CSC: one is in relation to the sexual offending piece, and the other is in relation to what was previously referred to as Bill S-10, the drug piece. When I refer to the $38 million, it's in relation to the implementation of those two subsections of Bill C-10.
The cost for us is the anticipated increase of the offender population for the sex offending piece, which we're estimating at its peak would probably be around 164 more inmates, on an ongoing basis, per year.
With regard to the costs associated with Bill S-10, because we provide community supervision for provincial offenders where there is no provincial parole board, a significant amount of that cost is for individuals who may get parole and we have to do the case preparation and the supervision of them. Those are our costs with that piece.
As for the rest of it—the previous question from a member was about the difference between the $38 million and the other $70 million—that's not related to the Correctional Service of Canada. As I said, I'd have to defer to the Department of Justice for the breakdown of those costs.
10:40 a.m.
NDP
Françoise Boivin NDP Gatineau, QC
Am I to understand that your $30 million is not included in that $70 million the minister was talking about--or is it?
10:40 a.m.
Commissioner, Correctional Service of Canada
It is. Just so I'm clear, that $38 million is part of that $70 million.
10:40 a.m.
NDP
Françoise Boivin NDP Gatineau, QC
Okay, excellent.
Do you see a potential consequence? For example, I talked to some correctional officers who were greatly concerned. They anticipate an increase in the number of offenders in the system and they feel this is a problem for them.
We often talk, and rightly so, about victims. We talk, rightly so, about punishing offenders. That said, we are forgetting about those who work inside those walls, those for whom you are responsible and who fall under your jurisdiction, and those are the officers responsible for these inmates.
Are you considering making some changes if the prison population increases? We know that, with regard to women's prisons, there are enormous difficulties. Have you made provisions for such measures? Have you already considered the problem this would mean for your services?
10:45 a.m.
Commissioner, Correctional Service of Canada
That's a very good question. This is something I engage with our six unions about on a regular basis. The strategy has multiple facets to it, including looking at training and equipment for staff from a safety perspective.
The biggest piece for us, and it's one that's been mentioned, is ensuring we have the right programs—the interventions, education programs, and employment skills opportunities for offenders so we engage them and keep them busy. If we keep the offenders busy, the issues around safety are diminished.
One of the key things for me in terms of implementing Bill C-10 , or any other bills that come forward, is making sure we have the appropriate interventions and programs in place to give offenders opportunities. If they're engaged and busy, safety is not a concern.
