Human Resources committee  My second level of concern is that it's a civil penalty on top of a criminal conviction. You're losing something. The state is taking away a benefit that you previously had. Where other people who might be equally at fault may be in the first category--maybe it was a self-induced injury, or something like that where there was an element of fault--they would be entitled to the deferment, and the other people would not.

Human Resources committee  Thank you very much. It's a great pleasure to be here this afternoon. The John Howard Society of Canada is celebrating its 50th year as a community-based charity in Canada with a mission to support effective, just, and humane responses to the causes and consequences of crime. The society has more than 60 front-line offices across the country, with many programs and services to support the safe reintegration of offenders into their communities and to prevent crime.

Justice committee  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.

Justice committee  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.

Justice committee  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.

Justice committee  I'm glad you raised that question. Some of my colleagues who are here will be addressing this more specifically later, but it is our view that to preclude a person who has paid their debt to society—they've completed their sentence, they've participated in a crime-free period—to deny them relief from discrimination because they have a criminal record, deny them the opportunity to get employment, to travel, and to do a variety of other things, really does hinder their possibility of continuing to lead crime-free lives.

Justice committee  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.

Justice committee  Do you mean, to say the same thing with respect to pardons, that there are problems of access to pardons? Yes, I think—

Justice committee  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.

Justice committee  I think there's something to be said for that. You're quite right, we first saw a benchmark by the Supreme Court of the United States in May indicating in the case of Brown v. Plata that 137.5% of overcapacity violated cruel and unusual standards there. In our provincial systems many are reporting capacity problems at 200%, double the number of inmates being placed in facilities based over what their initial intention was.

Justice committee  It would be my sense that if the legislation violated rights through the administration of this legislation in the provinces and the charter problems were arising in the provinces, the Minister of Justice would need to take that into account when looking at his certification. Yes, I would think so.

Justice committee  I think there are concerns about vagueness in some of the definitions. For example, the definition of violence in young people is not clear enough. There's no definition of bestiality, which can attract mandatory minimum penalties. There are section 7 problems associated with the dropping of the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard, and there are section 11 problems in connection with pre-trial detention issues.

Justice committee  Thank you very much for the opportunity to be here. The position of the John Howard Society of Canada is that Bill C-10 will not make streets or communities safer, despite the huge outlay of taxpayers' money. It will instead make communities less safe while eroding rights and principles of justice.

Public Safety committee  It's a noble aspiration, but I think you're going to have to deal with the downside risk that it won't take place. There is considerable increased unrest and violence among inmates who are addicted and looking for drugs. Moreover, there's the damage done to facilitating family reunification, by impeding family visits.

Public Safety committee  The translation isn't working. May I answer in English?