Public Safety Committee on March 3rd, 2011

[Justin Piché]

Yes.

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

I see. Mr. Waller, my next question requires your expertise.

You spoke a lot about prevention. Personally, I am a big believer in prevention. I think that if we tackle social problems at their root, society will benefit, and thus experience a lower crime rate. As a criminologist, I share that view.

In all your research, have you ever estimated what the cost of repeat offending is? Are there studies that take into account not just the financial costs, but also the human costs of repeat criminal behaviour in terms of all forms of crime in Canada, whether it be sexual assault, murder, rape, assault and battery or whatever? Have you done that kind of research, could you give us any insight into that?

[Dr. Irvin Waller]

I think one of the very sad realities of discussion of penitentiaries in Canada today is the lack of independent evaluations of the recidivism rate. All the evaluations done by Correctional Service of Canada are done internally and they tend to put a very positive view on the likelihood of reducing recidivism. But if you look, for instance, at the correctional investigator's report, they include an evaluation of the effectiveness of what the Americans call re-entry programs.

It is clear that you can reduce both violent crime and property crime by investing in those programs that have been proven to work—some of which were developed, actually, at the University of Ottawa—but have been developed elsewhere. You'll find a table in my book at the end of chapter 2 that shows the comparison between using a very heavy emphasis on re-entry as against prevention.

Prevention, prevention, prevention.... There is no doubt that we could reduce the levels of homicide; the levels of sexual assault, both reported and unreported; the levels of assault; the levels of car theft; the levels of break-ins—I'm not sure what crime you'd like me to pick—by upwards of 40% to 50% over the next ten years by investing the sorts of money that are being talked about for prison construction federally. In my view, that's where we should be putting our money. Yes, we should be putting more money in rehabilitation, but if the objective is to reduce harm, it's in prevention.

I would once again mention the Washington State Institute for Public Policy. You will see them looking at this re-entry issue.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much, Mr. Waller.

We'll now proceed to Mr. Davies, please.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Before we begin with Mr. Davies, I'll just remind the committee that we're going to have two hours, so there will be lots of time for a second round.

Continue.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

I'd like to thank all the witnesses for coming.

I'll say a special welcome to Mr. Hutchinson for coming to our country and sharing your experiences.

I want to start with you, Mr. Hutchinson, because I think you're a valuable resource, a particularly valuable resource for us today, because of the American experience.

I think it's a fair characterization of the government's approach to crime right now that they're taking a get-tough-on-crime approach. They're deliberately bringing in more mandatory minimums. Their policies will, without doubt, lock up more people for longer periods of time. An estimate from Corrections Canada that we saw a couple of weeks ago is that they expect an influx of about 30% more prisoners into the federal prison system over the next two to three years.

Now, if I understand your evidence and the Right on Crime perspective, it's that you've had experience with this very approach, I think, over the last quarter century—over the last 25 years—so I wonder if you could share with us. Many states in the United States have tried these policies over the last 25 years. Can you tell us, have they been effective in reducing recidivism, and have those policies been effective in reducing crime?

[Asa Hutchinson]

The crime rate has gone down in the United States. I would probably argue that the increased incarceration rates had a positive impact on reducing the crime rate. Everybody can argue statistics in different ways, but that's my view on it. At the same time that we had this crackdown, we made some mistakes, and I hope that you can learn from those mistakes.

One mistake is mandatory minimums. It created a lot of unfairness in our sentencing. There were instances of someone, for example a girlfriend, being peripherally involved, getting brought in, getting hit with a mandatory minimum, and getting ten years or more in prison. So we created escape valves. That's not a very technical term, but it gave the judge more discretion to avoid a mandatory minimum when it created unfairness. We had to do some legislative fixes.

The second mistake we made was, as Professor Waller mentioned, re-entry programs. We didn't do a very good job of working to prevent recidivism whenever people came out of prison.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Could I just stop you there and ask you to focus a bit on recidivism?

I'm told that, for example, in Texas, which was a leading proponent of those policies, the recidivism rate is some 50%. In fact it was described as a revolving door. Fully 50% of the inmates in the Texas correctional system came out of jail and were back in jail within I think a 36-month period. Would you agree with me that the recidivism rates have been largely unimpacted by that policy?

[Asa Hutchinson]

I would not disagree with it. Those statistics are appalling and the recidivism rate is much, much too high.

That's why I applaud Texas. Based upon the “right on crime” initiative, instead of going to another expansion of prisons, Texas put money into trying to help those who are coming out to prevent recidivism and to reduce that recidivism rate.

I think they've learned from that lesson, and I would agree with your point.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Okay.

Before I leave you, I just want to understand your position. You have signed on to the “right on crime” initiative, which, if I understand it correctly, is suggesting that the government, whether it's state or federal level in your country, stop prison expansion, and instead put more money into other areas, such as crime prevention, etc. If those policies reduced the crime rate, why are you not advocating a continuation of those policies?

[Asa Hutchinson]

That's where you've got to be careful not to go too far.

Let me make it clear that it's a set of principles. What the “right on crime” initiative says is it's the right thing for conservatives to re-evaluate our incarceration policies in the United States. That's a very important statement, because as conservatives we've historically said to lock them up and don't worry about the budget for prisons because we have to do that. In political terms you say this is cover. Conservative leaders are saying it's all right for conservatives across the United States to re-evaluate incarceration policies in light of these principles. We're not saying everything we've done is wrong, but we're saying it's the right thing to do in terms of fairness to take another look at it to make sure we're incarcerating the right people and we're getting the performance measures accomplished that we need.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Yes, and if I can quote Rick Perry, the Governor of Texas, he said:

I believe we can take an approach to crime that is both tough and smart. … [T]here are thousands of non-violent offenders in the system whose future we cannot ignore. Let’s focus more resources on rehabilitating those offenders so we can ultimately spend less money locking them up again.

I take it you would endorse that kind of statement.

[Asa Hutchinson]

Absolutely.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Waller, you've spent a lifetime, I think, advocating for victims. I think this government also says that we need to lock up more people for longer periods of time in this country and they invoke the concept of victims because that's what victims want and need. I'd like you to comment on that.

[Dr. Irvin Waller]

Some of the legislation that this government has introduced has basically been focused on the extreme cases, the sensational, exceptional, and dangerous cases. Expanding the use of dangerous offender legislation, for instance, would incarcerate more potentially dangerous people. They have done something similar in other areas.

But I think we have to come back to what we know from evidence that actually reduces violent crime. There's no doubt that Olson and Bernardo and so on need to be incarcerated, but there's also no doubt that we could reduce the murder rate in this country significantly by investing in the conclusions from the World Health Organization, from the Center for Disease Control.

By the way, the Public Safety Canada website shows you this is the sort of stuff that Alberta is doing. Alberta is interested in victims and in reducing violence against them. That's just prevention. Another part of Right on Crime is victim rights.

Yes, there's now a federal ombudsman for crime victims, but it's a travesty of what's being done to get law enforcement to focus on victims, to get services adequately funded, to get restitution paid—which is one of the best ways to have an alternative to incarceration.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much, Mr. Waller.

We'll now move to Mr. MacKenzie, please.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to the panel for being here.

Mr. Waller, you gave a great speech there on remands and the increase in remand. Could you tell us who is responsible for the administration of justice? What we're talking about is federal prisons. With remand it seems to me that you're in a different area of responsibility here. Can you tell us some connection to the federal prison system with the remand?

[Dr. Irvin Waller]

Yes, absolutely. I'm well aware that the administration of criminal justice, policing, courts, and corrections up to two years less a day is in the provincial mandate. I'm also very clear that education, health care, social services, municipalities are in the provincial mandate, and they're the sorts of things that Alberta is using to reduce crime. But the remand system is affected—

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

But what you talked about was the large numbers of increases in remands. Can you tell us how that connects to the federal government and federal prison expansion?

[Dr. Irvin Waller]

Yes. The large increase in the remands is partially affected by the Criminal Code. When you abolish two-for-one, you're going to start seeing more of these cases coming into the federal system. I think, as a country, we have to look at incarceration.

I'm a taxpayer, and I pay the municipality for policing, and I pay the provinces and the federal government for a range of things. I think we need to get these things better coordinated. I think a national action plan that brings together the provinces and the federal government to look at these issues is the way to go.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

But I suggest to you, sir, that by eliminating the two-for-one, it should speed the process in the remand. It should cut down the delays where people get credit for two-for-one or three-for-one time. In my opinion, you've made a connection to two things that are dissimilar.

Congressman Hutchinson, interestingly, when we checked online, there was another document that seems to be somewhat associated with your document—which I've read, and I do appreciate. It was called “Crime and punishment”, from the John Locke Foundation.

One of the interesting bullet points was: “From 1980 to 1992, according to the American Legislative Exchange Council, North Carolina was the only state in the nation whose overall incarceration rate declined (by 6 percent). The state's crime rate rose by 25 percent, the nation's second-highest increase.” Might there be some correlation?

We try to correlate everything sometimes. I don't know whether you've had the opportunity to compare the American system to the Canadian system, or I suspect perhaps, and you can tell us, that your involvement is purely with the American system and the overall change there.

[Asa Hutchinson]

That's correct.

But in North Carolina—just so I understand it—in 1980-92, the crime rate went up. Did the incarceration go up as well, then?

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

No, it went down.

[Asa Hutchinson]

The incarceration went down and crime—