Public Safety Committee on March 3rd, 2011

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much.

Ms. Mourani, for five minutes.

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Piché, I want to pick up on something. In your presentation, you speculated that the Truth in Sentencing Act would—and correct me if I am wrong—lead to an increase in prison occupancy rates. Were you referring to the occupancy rate in federal or provincial institutions?

[Justin Piché]

I was referring to Mr. Page's report. So it is Mr. Page's hypothesis, not mine.

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

Mr. Page makes a lot of hypotheses, as well. He confirmed as much when he appeared before the committee on February 17. So you were citing his hypothesis.

Furthermore, it is somewhat unfortunate that your research did not take into account practices in other countries. I would have really liked to know whether this measure is in place anywhere else. And if so, I would want to know if those countries got rid of the measure because it did lead to higher prisons costs and ultimately served no purpose except to turn people into criminals. There is absolutely no information on that, and I find it unfortunate.

[Justin Piché]

Actually, in preparation for my presentation today, I was supposed to write a 10-page report. I just handed in a 350-page thesis to my thesis supervisor. If I had had to include details about the prison construction taking place all over the country in a 10-page document, it would have been extremely difficult. What you are asking does not really seem to—

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

You do, in fact, cover that information in your 350-page report, do you not?

[Justin Piché]

I do not have it with me.

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

In your 350-page report, do you not examine best practices in other countries? That is what I am asking.

[Justin Piché]

I examine best practices, but I do not have that information in front of me. I was not prepared to get into that topic.

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

Would you be able to send us that information?

[Justin Piché]

Yes, but only after I have defended my thesis. That may be in August.

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

Thank you.

Mr. Waller, I would like you to clarify a few things. Earlier, we were talking about the costs of repeat criminal behaviour. Based on what you told me, at the end of the day, there is not really any reliable or comprehensive research on the costs associated with repeat offending. We have CSC's figures on recidivism. But we do not have anything on the costs of recidivism. Am I wrong?

[Dr. Irvin Waller]

We have nothing in Canada on the cost of recidivism, but the Washington State Public Policy Institute, which is like our Library of Parliament working for their legislators, has prepared major reports looking at the return on investment of a series of programs designed to reduce recidivism and to prevent crime. The return on investment looks at if you reduce crime, this is what you're reducing in terms of the notional costs of policing courts and corrections. It also uses a similar methodology to Justice Canada at looking at the harm to victims. Their material is very clear that the best way to reduce the need for prisons is to invest in what actually works to stop harm to victims, so prevention, yes.

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

I see. It is unfortunate we do not have that information.

I have here a document put out by Justice Canada entitled “Costs of Crime in Canada, 2008”. I can tell you that after reading it, I was a bit flabbergasted. It contains estimates of the cost of the justice system, the cost of the prison system and the cost of crime on victims.

I find it rather ridiculous that they are able to estimate the cost of the victim's suffering. For instance, the pain and suffering per break-and-enter victim is valued at $615. I have some questions about that. The pain and suffering per assault victim is valued at $9,547. I am not sure how they can put a value on the suffering of a murder victim's family and loved ones. I must tell you that for all the years crime has been around, for all of our discussion on crime and for all of our criminological expertise, I am a bit disappointed that we have absolutely no information on repeat criminal behaviour to show for it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much, Madam Mourani.

Unfortunately, we won't be able to get an answer, but we may be able to formulate some answer to her question in another question.

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

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brant, ON]

I too want to extend my thanks to all of you very learned men who are here today to share with us.

Mr. Piché, in your course of study, have you been able to tour any Canadian federal penitentiaries?

[Justin Piché]

Yes.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brant, ON]

Have you been in any of the ones mentioned that were built in the 1800s? I think those are Kingston, Stony Mountain, and Dorchester.

[Justin Piché]

No, but I've been to the federal training centre, which I believe was built in the 1950s, and I would consider that building to be decrepit and dilapidated as well.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brant, ON]

I'll make a comment, not directed to you to respond to because I have limited time and I want to cover several areas here. My comment is that your use of the numbers is, in my opinion, quite distorted, in the sense that.... We have toured the prisons, by the way. Our committee went on a Canada-wide tour. When you get into some of these prisons, as they exist today—I call them medieval—the cost just to maintain these buildings would be enormous, let alone the cost to improve them up to a standard that most people in today's world would accept, in this time we're in, as a reasonable standard.

One of the things our government has done is recognized that great deficit has existed, and we're putting money not only into expanding and creating new facilities but because these were left in horrendous condition. All you have to do is tour them to see.

Now I'd like to move on to Mr. Hutchinson. I'd like to understand better. You brought up one point, and I know we won't have much time to discuss it. It's the court system and gearing the court system upfront to be one of the preventive measures. I believe it was the drug court system. I know we won't have enough time to hear the explanation of that, but I'd like you, if you would, if you have background or if it's in the materials we've received, to point that out to us, because we've discussed that as one of the ways. I don't think there's anybody here who doesn't say we've got to find ways to increase rehabilitation but also to help individuals through the upfront process as they are brought in.

I'll just make one other comment. It was quite revealing here today to hear some of your mandatory minimums compared to our mandatory minimums and the fact that, as one of you has said here today, people who are maybe addicted to a drug and working in a tower on Bay Street in Toronto would be thrown in jail for five years because perhaps they had a certain quantity. That just does not happen in our system, nor do we want it to happen, in terms of what our legislation is driving at. We're driving at the dealers, the more serious people who are dealing these drugs to us.

Could you respond to my comments on those two fronts?

[Asa Hutchinson]

Thank you, and excellent observations.

At the federal level, on drug cases it's primarily the large trafficking organizations that are targeted. At the state level it's more routine crime and that's where much of the reform is taking place.

We talked about drug treatment courts. I would encourage you to look at that. That's at the state level and that is where historically you might send them to prison. But if they have an addiction problem and they're non-violent, then we tell then they'll go to a year in drug court, which means they don't go to jail as long as they are drug-tested every week, as long as they keep a job, as long as they report back to the court, and report to their probation officer. It is treatment with accountability, and that's what has really reduced recidivism. It has a great success track. It is not personality-driven but it is commitment-driven by the judge, by the prosecutor who is willing to devote resources to make that system work. But it's one of the great success stories, and I hope you'll look into it more.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brant, ON]

I find it curious that the Liberal public safety critic is absent from the meeting. Maybe there is good reason for that, but he is very critical and he brings up time and time again that the American system--

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Just one moment, Mr. McColeman--a point of order.

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Since when do we mention if a person is in committee or not? That's totally unparliamentary.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Mr. McColeman, he does have a replacement and--