Tracking the Politics of 'Crime' and Punishment in Canada

2011 Year-in-Review

2012-01-01T12:53:00.119-05:00

Another year has passed and penal policy continues to be a central item of discussion on the federal political scene in Canada. In the midst of generalized uncertainty, with the prospect of another financial crash constantly hanging over our heads, the only thing that appears to be certain in 2012 is that the Conservatives will press forward with their costly punishment agenda as the axe of 'austerity' falls elsewhere. What will remain of what little is left of the social services that once defined this country by the end of the first Harper majority weighs on the minds of many.

Below, I briefly summarize how penal policy debates played a role in triggering the 2011 federal election on May 2nd and some of the developments that have transpired in the realm of punishment since that time. From there, I discuss the issues in this area that will likely receive attention in the year ahead and the need for optimism in a time of penal 'inevitability'.

Stories Followed by TPCP Canada in 2011

1) Fiduciary Responsibilities, Contempt

and the Dissolution of Parliament

In 2010, the lack of transparency of the minority Conservative Government of Canada concerning the costs of their punishment measures became an important topic of debate in federal politics. This was in large part due to the fact that the Conservatives refused to table the costs of many of their 'tough on crime' initiatives in Parliament while pieces of legislation were being debated under the guise of "Cabinet confidence". They even went as far as to stonewall the independent Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO) who was forced to develop a forecasting model without much of the necessary federal government data on the impacts of the Truth in Sentencing Act (2009) (read report).

While one or more of the opposition parties helped to pass many punishment bills tabled by the Conservatives since 2006, often without the relevant financial information they had requested, the Liberals decided that this and other examples where the government prevented parliamentarians from exercising their fiduciary responsibilities would be a hill they would live or die on. After successive attempts to obtain information on key government expenditures, including the costs of new punishment measures (read posts from 7 February 2011 and 16 March 2011), a House of Commons committee declared that the Conservatives were in contempt of Parliament (read 21 March 2011 post). From there, the Liberals tabled a non-confidence motion that passed, putting an end to the 40th Parliament of Canada (read 26 March 2011). The Conservative punishment agenda was now on hold while an election would determine the future configuration of federal politics.

2) A Majority Government for the Federal Conservatives

Given the place that penality occupied in the 39th and 40th parliaments, the 2011 federal election campaign was quieter on this front than one would expect. On one end of the spectrum, the Conservatives promised to re-introduce legislation that had not passed in the previous session of Parliament as a single omnibus bill (read 6 April 2011 post). On the other end of the spectrum, the NDP promised to take a more 'prevention'-oriented approach, which centred on the provision of more funding for hiring public police officers (read 11 April 2011 post). For their part, the Green Party proposed to end the prohibition of marijuana and direct more resources to deal with 'white collar crime' (read 8 April 2011 post), while the Bloc Québecois chastised "Stephen Harper's Canada" for its penchant for punishment "as downright disquieting and even dangerous" (read 13 April 2011 post).

While other parties took relatively clear positions on penal policy, the Liberals were considerably more timid in their approach. Given that a central talking point they advanced was "prisons and planes" versus "the real priorities of Canadians", the party led by Michael Ignatieff critiqued Conservative prison spending, yet did not articulate how they would approach penal policy differently to reduce such expenditures or why they had supported some punishment bills in previous parliaments in their platform (read 6 April 2011). While it is unknown how this lack of clarity affected their electoral prospects, the Liberals took a mighty hit at the polls, while the Conservatives won a majority mandate.

3) An Omnimess Bill

The new Conservative Government of Canada had an opportunity to shepherd a national conversation on how to prevent victimization where possible, as well as meet the needs of the victimized and criminalized in instances where it is not when Parliament resumed business on June 2nd (read 16 May 2011 post). However, this opportunity was squandered as they continued right where they left off by tabling a budget that included massive increases in the expenditures of the Correctional Service of Canada (read 21 June 2011 post).

Following the summer recess, the Conservatives tabled their omnimess legislation, Bill C-10: The Safe Streets and Communities Act, in the House of Commons. After nearly two months of committee hearings - with opposition members, experts and some victims' rights advocates urging the government to reject or make amendments to the bill, along with public policing officials and other victims' rights advocates urging the swift passage of the legislation - the omnimess was passed in the House of Commons in December. The bill will now be the focus of committee hearings in the Senate when they resume their business later this month.

4) The Emergence of Organized Campaigns

Opposed to the Conservative Punishment Agenda

In the 39th and 40th parliaments much of the opposition to the Conservative punishment agenda came from academics, advocates from organizations such as the John Howard Society of Canada and the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies, and others who testified before committees in the House of Commons and Senate. When the 41st Parliament began these individuals and groups again raised their voices in opposition to efforts to increase the use of incarceration - experts who according to former Prime Minister Harper Chief of Staff Ian Brodie are "all held in lower repute than Conservative politicians... so we never really had to engage in the question of what evidence actually shows about various approaches to crime" (read 27 March 2009 article by John Geddes).

While the debate on penal policy remains polarized along familiar lines, new voices have emerged in this discussion such as the Smart Justice Network (SJN), which "is comprised of individuals and organizations concerned about current practices and trends within the Canadian criminal justice system" (follow SJN on Twitter). Among its activities, the SJN circulates regular media snapshots to those subscribed to its mailing list as a means to keep Canadians informed about the latest debates on the topic. Leadnow has also emerged as an important medium for mobilization against the Conservative punishment agenda, organizing online petitions, letter campaigns to MPs and Senators, as well as demonstrations across the country (read here). As the omnimess rolls on, it will be interesting to see if such campaigns remain as persistent as the current federal government is in its efforts or if the continued onslaught of penal policy measures will pacify this small, but growing resistance.

5) Some Provinces and Territories Wake-up

As I noted in a previous blog entry (read 22 September 2011 post) and op-ed (read 31 October 2011 article in The Hill Times), the provinces and territories have collectively earmarked billions of dollars for the construction of new prison spaces primarily as a means to cope with the growth in remand populations over the past number of decades. With few jurisdictions having reported to me that they incorporated projections related to federal penal policy measures into their prison construction plans, including the provisions contained in the omnimess bill, it was surprising that provincial-territorial governments had not raised questions about how the measures introduced by their counterparts in Ottawa - some of which they supported - would be paid for at a time where they will have to cut social services and / or raise taxes to balance the books.

Seemingly asleep at the switch for sometime, it appears as though many provinces and territories finally awoke to the reality that many of the costs resulting from the introduction of measures contained in Bill C-10, such as those related to new mandatory minimum sentences under two years in length and greater restrictions on the use of conditional sentences, would be borne by them. While the federal government is likely counting on a split between vehement opponents of the bill such as Québec and proponents of intensified punishment such as Saskatchewan to stymie the prospect of collective provincial-territorial resistance on this file, as demonstrated at the conclusion of the recent FPT meeting of justice and public safety ministers last week all jurisdictions have their hands out for Ottawa's cash (read 25 January 2012 article by Kim Mackrael). How these two levels of government work or do not work together on penal policy matters in the future will be a story to watch for in 2012.

Stories to Watch for in 2012

As the runaway Conservative punishment train races down the tracks in reverse while some clamour for them to go back to the future, here are five stories that I will be tracking in 2012.

1) PBO Report Estimating the

Costs of the Omnimess Bill

When Bill C-10 was first tabled in the fall, the Conservatives initially refused to attach a price tag to the piece of legislation (see, for instance, Seamus O'Regan's interview with Rob Nicholson on CTV). After being bludgeoned in the news media for a few weeks, the federal government stated that the bill would cost them $78.6 million over a period of five years (read 6 October 2011 article by Tobi Cohen). No estimate was provided concerning the costs of the bill to provincial-territorial treasuries.

Wanting an independent analysis of the costs of the omnimess, the opposition requested that the PBO study the bill. After months of being stonewalled by Public Safety Canada, the PBO again requested information from the agency (read letter dated 10 January 2012) and tabled a new request for information from Justice Canada (read letter dated 16 January 2012).

Given that it is likely that the PBO will again be forced to conduct an analysis of expenditures without relevant information from federal government departments, the Conservatives will likely suggest that Kevin Page and his team's figures will prove to be inaccurate. They will also continue to claim that federal prison population growth related to the Truth in Sentencing Act (2009) has been slower than even CSC had anticipated (read 26 January 2012 article by Jeff Davis) as a means to discredit PBO estimates.

While it does appear that PBO projections outlined in their June 2010 report will not materialize, it should be noted that the work of the office represents a kind of worst-case scenario whereby estimates were based on the assumption that rates of criminalized victimization and the reaction by the penal system would remain constant. Such analysis did not account for the moderating forces within the system that absorb change discussed by Doob and Webster (2006), nor could it. The strength in the analysis is that it highlights areas where, should adjustments not be made, impacts will be felt. Thus, future reports tabled by the PBO should be viewed for their usefulness in highlighting where changes in the way the system deals with criminalized victimization will likely need to occur to avoid the scenario where no adjustments are made.

Also left out in this narrative is that the federal government has never released documentation from CSC that sets-out what the expected flow of federal prisoners resulting from this measure, which to date is approximately 1,500, was projected to be at this stage to the PBO or anyone else to substantiate their claims. Moreover, the impact on the provinces and territories - who the feds claimed would have smaller prison populations once further restrictions were placed on credit for time served - has not been explored. With a paucity of information provided by the Conservatives, coupled with their efforts to sabotage attempts to conduct meaningful analysis on the costs of their punishment agenda, this story is definitely one to watch this year.

2) 'Austerity' Budget 2012,

A.K.A. from Welfare to Penal State?

CSC's budget has been increasing for sometime (read 20 July 2011 article by Dan Gardner). With that said the 86.7 percent increase from the $1.597 billion earmarked by the Liberals in 2005-2006 to the $2.982 billion earmarked by the Conservatives in 2011-2012 (read 21 June 2011 post) does represent a clear illustration of the intensification of punishment underway in Canada.

With expenditures for CSC and other 'security'-oriented departments likely to rise as the guillotine of 'austerity' drops elsewhere in Ottawa, a story to watch for in 2012 is whether Canada continues to move away from a welfare state, that is said to provide a social safety net for vulnerable members of our society, to a penal state, that effectively punishes those who fail to insulate themselves from the consequences of unemployment, disease, aging and the like as has been observed elsewhere (read Gilmore, 2007).

3) Whatever Happened to CSC's

Long-term Accommodation Strategy?

Another issue, which has been slowly developing for a number of years, is what has happened to CSC's long-term accommodation strategy in response to recommendations from a 2007 review panel that proposed the construction of new regional complexes to replace aging institutions said to be outmoded to meet 'modern' prison objectives. While the Conservatives have long claimed that the construction of new penitentiaries is not in the cards (read posts from 18 March 2010 and 19 March 2010), in favour of double-bunking prisoners in cells originally designated to warehouse one person as a temporary accommodation measure (read 11 August 2010 post) until new units being built on the grounds of existing penitentiaries come online (read 14 February 2011 post), Public Safety Minister Vic Toews noted in December 2010 that a such a plan would be submitted to Cabinet "for consideration in March 2011" (read 3 October 2011 post).

We are now in 2012 and there is still no word on the specifics concerning CSC's long-term accommodation strategy. Having obtained documentation that shows that the planning process for regional complexes had begun in 2008 (view documents here), I contacted CSC to find-out if any progress had been made on the file. In a 21 October 2011 email, an official from CSC Media Relations responded to my query noting the following:

"The Long-term Accommodation Strategy is subject to Cabinet confidence and any details cannot be discussed. CSC is continually assessing its long term requirements based on legislative proposals and cost containment measures. Any decisions regarding the long-term accommodation strategy will be announced as part of the normal budget cycles".

With the budget fast approaching, will 2012 be the year where Canadians learn more about CSC's long-term penal infrastructure plans? Stay tuned.

4) Prisons Under Duress

With the Correctional Investigator of Canada again warning the federal government about the risk prison overcrowding poses to the security of institutions and its impact on the availability of programming (read 2010-2011 Annual Report), 2012 will be a challenging year for staff working and prisoners living inside these institutions. Despite claims made by irresponsible ministers in government who maintain that arrangements such as double-bunking do not pose a threat to institutional security and are humane, experience inside tells another story (read 17 June 2011 article by David McKie). With the feds seemingly not phased by having blood on their hands, one can only hope that penitentiaries do not explode under their watch as they did in the 1970s and early 1980s when human rights and hope inside such facilities were next to non-existent.

At the provincial-territorial level, where triple-bunking in cells originally designed for one prisoner has been reported in Alberta, British Columbia and Ontario, circumstances inside prisons are also dire. As the Harper administration sticks to their plan to see their omnimess bill through, the National Union of Public and General Employees, which represents prison staff in a number of jurisdictions, has publicly denounced Bill C-10 and particularly its lack of provisions to address the mental health crisis inside penal institutions (read 26 January 2012 article by CBC News).

With prison staff expressing concerns about the safety in their workplaces and various voices continuing to demonstrate how increasing the use of imprisonment is a failed approach to enhancing community safety, perhaps 2012 will be the year where more Canadians draw the conclusion that the Conservative punishment agenda has nothing to do with our safety and everything to do with securing their electoral prospects.

5) Criminalization and Civil Death

While the push to increase the use of incarceration by the federal government is problematic for a number of reasons, perhaps the most worrisome aspect of their punishment agenda is their apparent desire for individuals to continue to be punished well-after the completion of their sentences. Further restricting access to and raising costs for pardons are just some of the changes that will work to create a larger permanent underclass of criminalized peoples in Canada.

At a time where the livelihoods of many are already in jeopardy or under threat, the 'criminal' is an easy target for scapegoating and tension release through the infliction of pain. As new measures are tabled by the Conservatives to disenfranchise and effectively ensure a bourgeoning supply of permanently criminalized peoples, many of whom will have little means to survive and may end up in prison as a result, Canadians will have to decide for themselves if communities without second chances where civil death is increasingly normalized are places in which they want to live (watch interview).

The Need for Continued Resistance and Hope

Until 2015, a federal government that is committed to expanding the use of criminalization and punishment as tools to address often complex conflicts and harms in the name of victims and 'law-abiding' citizens will be in place. For Prime Minister Harper and his team the wealth of evidence and experience that suggests their policies are destined to be costly, unjust and immoral failures appear to be minor inconveniences that are to be neutralized by repeating meaningless slogans in mind-numbing fashion.

For those who oppose the Conservative punishment agenda, the future appears to be grim and it is not uncommon to hear frequent utterances of the old adage "things often have to get worse before they get better" when discussing penal policy. Perhaps this is so and we will continue to witness many of the same follies seen in the United States, the world's largest prisoner recycling and disposal station, for many more years to come.

A legislative agenda dominated by new sentencing measures - check.

A brand of politicking that derides expertise that puts into question the desirability and viability of such measures - check.

Suggesting that 'crime' is a growing problem, ignoring statistics that suggest otherwise as new penal infrastructure is announced and more individuals enter prisons, and then taking credit for decreases in rates of police-reported 'crime' that were already decreasing well before an intensification in punishment occurred - check.

While I could go on, there is equal cause for optimism. As we enter a new age of 'austerity', it appears as though many are making the connections necessary to understand that increasing the use of imprisonment punishes us all in the form of less resources for health care, education, pensions and the like. Should this awareness be combined with more robust and generalized resistance perhaps future federal governments, no matter the political stripe, will engage the politics of victimization, criminalization, and punishment differently in manners that meet the human needs of affected parties via good policy, rather than sacrifice them at the alter of what is said to be good politics. Perhaps this hope is misplaced, but for me, as long as we have "another day" we have "another chance to get it right" (listen to Morning Yearning by Ben Harper).

Minister Toews - Is There a Plan for Regional Penitentiary Complexes or Would You "Rather Not Share"?

2011-10-03T07:01:00.035-04:00

While the Conservative Government of Canada is set to announce a job creation plan tomorrow (read CBC News article), they may also be considering another strategy to address unemployment in Canada and other social ills prisons have become a panacea for - to build new regional penitentiary complexes.

According to a partial release of documents obtained through an Access to Information request filed with the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) as part of a research project I've undertaken with Humber Professor Greg McElligott, federal penitentiary system officials formed a "Modernization of physical infrastructure and planning of regional complexes Committee" in 2008. They have also been attending presentations by government corporations such as P3 Canada, Infrastructure Ontario, and Partnerships BC on the different forms of public-private partnerships that exist for establishing new capital projects since at least March 2008 (view documents here).

The contents of these documents raise a number questions that need to be directed towards Public Safety Minister Vic Toews. Most importantly among them is whether or not CSC has tabled a capital plan for regional complexes to Cabinet involving a private-public partnership for building, financing and maintaining these facilities.

According to a 6 December 2010 response by Minister Toews to an Order Paper question submitted by former Liberal Public Safety Critic Mark Holland (Q-471), CSC's "Long-term Accommodation Strategy and Investment Plan" was to be tabled "for consideration in March 2011". It is now October 2011 and some 7 months have passed. So the main question that the Minister needs to be asked is whether there is a plan for regional penitentiary complexes siting on his desk or if he'd "rather not share" those details with Canadians at this time.

Emergence of the Proposal for Regional Complexes

In 2007, the CSC Review Panel identified several deficiencies with the current fleet of federal penitentiaries including their age, the preponderance of space said to be inconducive to the provision of institutional security and programming, and the geographic dispersal of the facilities. With these issues and others in mind, the panel made the following recommendations:

"98. The Panel recommends that CSC pursue undertaking capital and operating investments in a new type of regional, penitentiary complex that responds to the cost-efficiency and operational-effectiveness deficits of its current physical infrastructure.

99. The Panel recommends that CSC develop a 'project development proposal' for consideration which takes into account the recommendations of Deloitte's October 4, 2007 Independent Review of the cost estimate for the construction and operation of a new correctional facility which was commissioned by the Panel.

100. The Panel recommends that in the interim, CSC institute a clear criteria to minimize authorization of retrofit projects".

It should be noted that the Review Panel's recommendations for regional complexes that would replace existing facilities did not account for an influx of new prisoners resulting from some Conservative punishment bills such as the Truth in Sentencing Act (2009) (note: Deloitte estimated each facility would contain 2,175 cells). As will be discussed further below, the proposition of limiting retrofit projects appears to have been ignored as CSC pursues a short-term accommodation strategy to deal with an increase in their prison population and a long-term accommodation strategy along the lines of the Review Panel's recommendations.

CSC's Transformation Team

Following the release of the report, CSC assembled a "Transformation Team" in early 2008 to implement the recommendations of the Review Panel. According to, then, CSC Senior Deputy Commissioner Don Head (now CSC Commissioner), part of their activities involved the development of a three-pronged plan to 'modernize' physical infrastructure (read May 2008 article):

Component 1 (retrofits)

"The first addresses the most severe problems associated with "rust-out" in our institutions. CSC was provided with resources in 2007-08 and 2008-09 to do exactly this. A priority list of repairs and improvements was identified, by institution, and we will be proceeding to implement these changes".

Component 2 (short-term accommodation strategy)

"A second and important requirement is the review of our current accommodation strategy and capital accommodation plan, particularly with respect to critical redevelopment and new construction plans. We must ensure that our current plans help us meet the immediate needs of the changing prisoner profile, while ensuring that we do not over-invest in infrastructure that could be replaced by regional complexes".

Component 3

(long-term accommodation strategy / regional complexes)

"Overall, a regional complex would comprise maximum-, medium- and minimum-security accommodation areas, appropriately separated within a common perimeter fence but sharing common services [...]

We are also moving forward in exploring the approach that will be used to enter into a public-private sector arrangement to assist us in the modernization initiative. It is important that we be well advised as we move forward. We have had a preliminary briefing by a new Crown corporation, the Canadian Council for Public-Private Partnerships, which was established by the Government in the 2008 Budget to support public-private partnerships in maximizing financial investments. We have also had preliminary discussions with Partnerships BC, a provincial Crown agency to support such partnerships. Ongoing consultations with such groups will ensure that we do not move forward alone, but with expert advice and guidance.

[...]

Thirdly, we are putting together a CSC team to develop a business process overview. The overview will in a very detailed manner, describe all aspects of our institutional activities, from intake assessment to reintegration planning and community release. As well, it will define management and operational requirements related to security, and the day-to-day running of the institution. Consultation with regional staff is an equally important element of the creation of the overview.

During this planning period and beyond, full consideration will be given to the relationship of moving to a regional complex with the impact on staff. Every effort will be taken to ensure that the needs of institutional staff are considered in the transition process. This will include ongoing consultation with the unions, institutional staff and the communities that will be affected".

The Modernization of Physical Infrastructure and

Planning of Regional Complexes Committee

As noted at the beginning of this entry, the third component of CSC's so-called physical infrastructure modernization efforts including the development of a project plan for regional complexes has involved meetings with a number of agencies involved in public-private partnerships.

To date, documentation has been obtained from the following presentations that CSC officials have attended: 1) March 2008 - P3 Canada; 2) no date - Public Works and Government Services; 3) 2 April 2009 - Infrastructure Ontario; 4) 8 April 2008 - Public Works and Government Services Canada; 5) 4 June 2009 - meeting participants, Infrastructure Ontario (part I; part II), Partnerships BC; and 6) 20 January 2010 - P3 Canada.

Documentation has also been obtained from a 20-21 November 2008 meetings of the Modernization of Physical Infrastructure and Planning of Regional Complexes Committee and related e-mails (25 July 2008; 9 October 2008).

As this Committee continued its work, a CSC Task Force on Security published a report in August 2008 (read here) that, while supportive of a multi-security-level facility concept, proposed that the capacity of institutions adopting such a model should not exceed 500 prisoners. This is significantly lower than the number of prisoners that would be warehoused within institutions modelled along the approach discussed by Deloitte as part of the 2007 CSC Review Panel report. As such, questions need to be raised about what configuration federal penitentiaries are proposed to take under CSC's long-term accommodation strategy that was scheduled to be tabled to Minister Toews months ago.

A Short-term Accommodation Strategy

In the midst of working towards developing a plan for regional complexes, CSC was also in the process on putting together a short-term accommodation strategy to absorb an expected influx of new prisoners resulting from federal sentencing measures. The details of this aspect of the 'modernization' of federal penitentiary system infrastructure began to emerge as Minister Toews was increasingly pressed by journalists and opposition parliamentarians to explain how the Conservatives planned to absorb the expected influx of new prisoners resulting from their punishment agenda beginning in March 2010.

As pressure continued to mount, CSC Commissioner Don Head wrote an op-ed published on 22 June 2010 (read here) - the same day that the Parliamentary Budget Officer published an estimate of the costs associated with the Truth in Sentencing Act (2009) (read here) - that offered a few details regarding CSC's short- and long-term accommodation plans. Among the details shared was a plan to create 2,700 additional prison spaces by adding new units on the grounds of existing facilities, along with an "increase in shared cell accommodation", also known as double-bunking. While Minister Toews had previously suggested that Commissioner Head was engaging in "conjecture" when he suggested in e-mails and before parliamentary committee's that new institutions would be constructed (watch 18 March 2010 interview on CBC's Power & Politics with Evan Solomon), the op-ed mentioned that CSC was also pursuing a "long-term plan that takes into account the need to replace some penitentiaries that have stood the test of time for many decades and no longer meet the requirements of a modern correctional system".

As part of CSC's short-term accommodation strategy, the Conservatives announced the equivalent of 34 new units to be located on the grounds of existing institutions from August 2010 to January 2011 (read 14 February 2011 post). It is estimated that these facilities will add 2,552 new prisoner beds at a construction cost of $601 million. In the process, it appears as though CSC and the Conservatives are ignoring aspects of the recommendations made by the 2007 CSC Review Panel that sought to replace, not expand, the federal penitentiary system's aging fleet of institutions.

As more details emerge, it also appears that CSC is moving towards establishing additional multi-level institutions through these smaller capital projects. For instance, a new maximum-security unit is being established on the grounds of the medium-security Collins Bay Institution. Such measures have been criticized by a number of stakeholders ranging from Howard Sapers, the Correctional Investigator of Canada, to officials from the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers (read 2 August 2011 article by Rob Tripp).

Potential Carceral Futures

and the Need for Transparency

With the agency's long-term accommodation strategy scheduled to be submitted in March 2011, there is a need to ask whether or not the additions being erected as part of CSC's short-term accommodation strategy may in fact be money down the drain should the facilities where they are being erected be closed as the 2007 CSC Review Panel recommends.

Another scenario, whereby old facilities that the Review Panel recommended for closure do not go offline as intended as new prisons designed to replace them come online, is just as plausible given the history of penal infrastructure construction in Canada that often sees facilities like Kingston Penitentiary (built in 1835) remain in operation long after promises of their closure are made. If this turns out to be the case, CSC will continue to have a stock of aging penitentiaries, along with newer facilities, that will further entrench Canada's capacity to confine and punish at a tremendous economic and human cost.

Do Canadians have a right to know where or not there is a plan for regional complexes siting on Minister Toews' desk and what that plan entails? I suspect the federal government will take the position that we do not - after all, why give their critics more ammunition to denounce their punishment agenda that the best available evidence suggests will have a negligible impact on what we call 'crime'.

I do hope, however, that I'm wrong and that they may have the courage to give us our information so that we can decide for ourselves if we want to be paying prison mortgages in the decades ahead as my generation is asked to pay higher taxes, while expenditures on priorities such as education for our children, old age security for our parents, health care for all citizens, and other measures are rolled back under the banners of 'austerity' and 'smaller' government.

Are the Provinces and Territories Ready for an Influx of New Prisoners?

2011-09-22T06:29:00.041-04:00

* New content - updated 2 October 2011 following correspondence with prison officials from New Brunswick, Alberta, British Columbia and the Yukon.

With, what was then, a minority Conservative Government of Canada tabling a number of punishment measures in a stated effort to send more people to prison, for longer periods of time and fewer chances of release into the community for supervision prior to the expiry of their sentences, I wondered how prison authorities from across the country were planning to cope with the potential influx of new prisoners. What I have found in the last few years of doing research in this area has surprised me. While all provinces and territories had, at the very least, planned to build new prison spaces, most of these initiatives were being pursued in response to longstanding issues related to the increase in their remand populations since the mid-1990s, not federal sentencing measures.

Given that the new majority Conservative Government of Canada has just tabled an omnibus punishment bill that is likely to generate additional prisoners - particularly at the provincial-territorial level with provisions intended to further restrict the use of conditional sentences and new mandatory minimum sentences for the production, possession and trafficking of substances that have been deemed illicit (read here) - one question we must ask is: are the provinces and territories ready for an influx of new prisoners?

Research Process

In February 2009, I began a project that would identify the scope of new prison construction initiatives, as well as the justifications advanced by prison officials and external consultants in support of these projects. The first phase of data collection involved an online content search for relevant government press releases and web pages. I then contacted every prison authority informally by phone to inquire about penal infrastructure initiatives they had recently completed (i.e. operational facilities) and other projects that were underway at various stages of completion (e.g. planning, procurement, construction) since 2007. The third phase of data collection involved filing Access to Information and Freedom of Information requests to obtain relevant data.

By December 2009, I had accumulated a few thousand pages related to new prison spaces that were at various stages of completion. Having decided that I would publicize my research findings using various mediums, beginning with a presentation at a 17 February 2010 public forum I organized in Ottawa, I contacted provincial-territorial prison officials to review the data I had accumulated (e.g. new prisons, additions to existing facilities, number of new prisoner beds, construction-related costs and project status). I did this for two reasons: 1) I wanted to make sure I had the most up-to-date data to share with Canadians and 2) I wanted to make sure that in the event that my figures were deemed to be inaccurate I could legitimately point to a lack of government transparency as the source of such an outcome. It should be noted, that I repeated this exercise on two other occasions as I prepared for a 31 May 2010 presentation at the Bi-annual Meeting of the Provincial-Territorial Heads of Corrections and as I drafted a brief for a 3 March 2011 appearance before the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

* I also contacted provincial-territorial prison officials via e-mail on 23 September 2011 asking for the most up-to-date figures regarding construction-related costs and the net capacity gains associated with their penal infrastructure initiatives.

Findings

With the provinces and territories having been given the opportunity to vet my findings again at the beginning of March 2011, my written submission to federal parliamentarians noted the following: 1) there were 23 new provincial-territorial prisons and 16 additions to existing facilities at various stages of completion; 2) at least 7,348 new prisoner beds would come online once these new penal infrastructure initiatives were completed; 3) the construction-related costs for these projects was $3.049 billion and rising as estimates for a few projects had yet to be disclosed; and 4) only the governments of Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island and Ontario had attempted to consider the impact of federal legislation when planning their prison capacity expansion projects. Since my March 2011 submission to the Standing Committee on National Security and Public Safety, a few new developments have emerged.

1) On 31 March 2011, the Government of Saskatchewan announced the construction of a 32-cell addition to the Pine Grove Correctional Centre for women in Prince Albert estimated to cost $12 million (read here). This addition is being erected in a stated effort to mitigate overcrowding in a facility "built in the mid 1960s to house 63 inmates and currently has an average daily inmate count of 120", which is said "to provide a much needed response to safely manage current and future projected inmate counts".

2) On 11 April 2011, the Government of Ontario announced the cost of the contract for the new South West Detention Centre in Windsor (read here). Amortized over 30 years, the estimated cost of building, financing and maintaining the facility is $336 million.

3) On 21 June 2011, the Government of Manitoba announced the appointment of a panel to assist with the province's plan "to design and build new jails", and to advise on the prison space needed in the decade ahead (read here).

4) In June 2011, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador cancelled plans to build a new remand centre in Labrador in a stated effort to divert funding towards programming for prisoners. It should be noted that no funding or prisoner bed estimates associated with this project had been disclosed during the primary phases of data collection as part of my study.

* 5) On 26 September 2011, an official from the Government of Yukon informed me that the new territorial prison in Whitehorse had come under its $67 million budget at $63 million.

* 6) On 26 September 2011, an official from the Government of British Columbia informed me that the number of new prisoner beds at the new remand centre in Surrey had been revised from 432 to 324 beds. The construction-related costs of the project had also been revised from $130 million to $112.5 million. The number of new prisoner beds as part of the new prison slated for construction in the Okanagan was revised from 720 to 540 beds. Prisoner bed figures were also modified for the second addition to the Alouette Correctional Centre for Women (208 to 156 beds) and an addition to the Prince George Correctional Centre (24 to 30 beds).

* 7) On 2 October 2011, an official from the Government of Alberta informed me that the New Edmonton Remand Centre is expected to have 1,952 prisoner beds (up 8 prisoner beds from previous information disclosures) when it opens and that a decision has been made to close the existing 734-bed Edmonton Remand Centre once it comes online. Thus, the new facility will add 1,218 new prisoner beds to Alberta's prison system, not 1,944 new prisoner beds as had been previously disclosed to the public. It should be noted, however, that if it is deemed that additional remand spaces are required, the New Edmonton Remand Centre will be able to expand by 3 pods totalling another 864 beds, which would bring the facility to 2,816 prisoner beds.

Are the Provinces and Territories Ready for an Influx of New Prisoners?

While the provinces and territories are in the process of adding thousands of new prisoner beds to their respective prison systems, it needs to be reiterated that most jurisdictions did not report to me that they had factored-in federal sentencing measures into their penal infrastructure initiatives. So what explains the prison capacity boom that has been unfolding at the provincial-territorial level in recent years?

According to information I have obtained, the provinces and territories are working towards relieving capacity pressures associated with a longstanding increase in the number of prisoners awaiting trial and / or sentencing. From 1986-1987, between 23 and 30 percent of provincial-territorial prisoners were on remand, which climbed to 40 percent by 2000-2001 (Johnson, 2003). In 2004-2005, approximately half of those incarcerated by the provinces and territories were on remand (Beattie, 2006). Since that time, those remanded in custody have outnumbered sentenced prisoners at the provincial-territorial level, totalling 58 percent in 2009-2010 (Porter and Calverley, 2011).

This shift in the Canadian prison population has contributed to overcrowding in many facilities operated by provincial-territorial governments. As noted in a 2008 report by Deloitte (read here), many jurisdictions across Canada have been double-bunking and sometimes even triple-bunking prisoners in response to this crisis (p. 98). The Deloitte report noted that one way Nova Scotia could respond to the remand demand would be to essentially redefine the term "capacity", to allow double-bunking as other jurisdictions have done (see p. 95 and pp. 98-99). This policy option was recommended despite the fact that Canada is a signatory to the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners that states:

9. (1) Where sleeping accommodation is in individual cells or rooms, each prisoner shall occupy by night a cell or room by himself. If for special reasons, such as temporary overcrowding, it becomes necessary for the central prison administration to make an exception to this rule, it is not desirable to have two prisoners in a cell or room.

In the current context, the temporary has become a permanent state of affairs with some prison authorities building facilities with double-bunking in mind. While the hang em' high crowd supports this kind of human warehousing, they should ask themselves what types of individuals do they want coming out of our prisons. They should also ask themselves what kind of social return on their investment in penal infrastructure they will be getting when the bulk of the research in this area has shown that increasing the use of incarceration has a negligible impact on the complex conflicts and harms in our communities that we call 'crime'.

In a 2009 report submitted to the Federal-Provincial-Territorial Ministers Responsible for Justice and Public Safety in Canada entitled Changing Face of Corrections Report, the members of this task force noted that if measures were not undertaken at all levels of the penal system to curb the remand demand, that the provinces and territories would be forced to build new penal institutions. They went even further, arguing: "Building remand centres is expensive and resourcing a bad trend [and] is paving a road we shouldn't be on" (p. 15). And here we are.

If the new provincial-territorial penal institutions at various stages of completion actually manage to address the remand demand, the new federal sentencing measures which were largely unaccounted for in the planning of these prison spaces may just plunge these jurisdictions back into the hole they've been trying to dig themselves out of. If this happens, the provinces and territories will again find themselves in the position where they will need to devise a strategy to mitigate overcrowding in their prisons, which is dangerous to prisoners, staff, but also our communities. The likely conclusion will be a carceral one - more prison construction. With a belief in the Gods of deterrence and incapacitation, the Conservative Government of Canada appears intent on pursuing this damaging path in the name of 'public safety'.

In an economic context where the feds and their provincial-territorial counterparts are running deficits, Canadians are being told that the costs of the Conservative omnibus punishment bill, costs they would rather not share with us, are "sustainable" (watch the CTV interview with Justice Minister Rob Nicholson). As someone who has just entered the full-time workforce whose future earnings have already been earmarked for prison spaces being built today, I wonder why the Conservatives do not have the courage to provide estimates to those footing the bill for their punishment binge, especially when they have a majority for the next four years. Those in power would never recommend to their constituents that they buy anything from a salesmen without a price tag on the basis of assurances that the cost of the good or service in question is "sustainable", yet we are expected to swallow serving after serving of penal pork.

For proponents of incarceration - one of which routinely goes on the "state broadcaster" preaching austerity, while supporting the costly Conservative punishment binge on another network - who point to the costs of victimization, which were estimated to be $99 billion in 2008 by a Department of Justice researcher (read here), to justify the expansion of prison spaces, answer this:

If we take this number at face value, which includes $15 billion in penal system costs, does increasing our reliance on incarceration - an approach deemed largely ineffective in reducing that which we call 'crime' - contribute to a reduction in these costs or will this simply add to the costs of victimization in this country?

PROVINCIAL-TERRITORIAL

PENAL INFRASTRUCTURE INITIATIVES

(2007-present)

* Note: In keeping with previous research practice, I have again resubmitted the data below to provincial-territorial prison officials today for updates and will post any discrepancies, should they exist, in the weeks ahead.

Summary

Number of new prisons: 22

Number of additions to existing facilities: 17

Number of additional prisoner beds: 6,312 - 6,317

Estimated construction-related costs: $3.375 billion

* See detailed project-by-project breakdown below.

Newfoundland and Labrador

Replacement Prison(s)

1 or 2 - for Her Majesty's Penitentiary

Location(s): to be determined

Net capacity gain: to be determined

Estimated construction cost: to be determined

Project phase: on hold

* Studying the impacts of federal legislation prior to implementation

Prince Edward Island

Addition - Provincial Correctional Centre

Location: Charlottetown

Net capacity gain: 48 beds

Estimated construction cost: $3.4 million

Project phase: operational

Replacement Remand Centre / Prison

Prince County Correctional Centre

Location: Summerside

Net capacity gain: 42 beds

Estimated construction cost: $18.5 million

Project phase: on hold

* Studying the impacts of federal legislation prior to implementation

Nova Scotia

Replacement Prison

Location: Coalburn

Net capacity gain: 164 beds

Estimated construction cost: $31.3 million

Project phase: construction

New Brunswick

Replacement for the Moncton Detention Centre

Southeast Correctional Centre

Location: Shediac

Net capacity gain: 122 beds

Estimated construction cost: $36 million

Project phase: construction

Replacement Prison

New Dalhousie Correctional Centre

Location: Dalhousie

Net capacity gain: 70 beds

Estimated construction cost: $20 million

Project phase: construction

Québec

New Replacement Prison

Location: Sept-Îles

Net capacity gain: 28 beds

Estimated construction cost: $78 million

Project phase: procurement

New Replacement Prison

Location: Roberval

Net capacity gain: 31 beds

Estimated construction cost: $107 million

Project phase: procurement

New Replacement Prison

Location: Sorel-Tracy

Net capacity gain: 149 beds

Estimated construction cost: $143 million

Project phase: construction

New Replacement Prison

Location: Amos

Net capacity gain: 84 beds

Estimated construction cost: $111 million

Project phase: procurement

Closed Prison Retrofit and Re-opening

Location: Percé

Net capacity gain: 46 beds

Estimated construction cost: $11 million

Project phase: operational

Addition - Établissement de détention

Location: Québec

Net capacity gain: 96 beds

Estimated construction cost: $19 million

(shared with other additions)

Project phase: construction

Addition - Établissement de détention

Location: Amos

Net capacity gain: 36 beds

Estimated construction cost: $19 million

(shared with other additions)

Project phase: construction

Addition - Établissement de détention

Location: Trois-Rivières

Net capacity gain: 96 beds

Estimated construction cost: $19 million

(shared with other additions)

Project phase: construction

Addition - Établissement de détention

Location: Sherbrooke

Net capacity gain: 96 beds

Estimated construction cost: $19 million

(shared with other additions)

Project phase: construction

Ontario

New Remand/Intermittent Centre -

Toronto South Detention Centre / Toronto Intermittent Centre

Location: Toronto

Net capacity gain: 1,100 beds

Estimated construction cost: $1.1 billion

Project phase: construction

New Remand Centre - South West Detention Centre

Location: Windsor

Net capacity gain: 175 beds

Estimated construction cost: $336 million

Project phase: construction

Manitoba

Replacement Prison

New Prison for Women

Location: Headingly

Net capacity gain: 55 beds

Estimated construction cost: $60 million

Project phase: construction

Addition - Millner Ridge Correctional Centre (phase I)

Location: Beauséjour

Net capacity gain: 160 beds

Estimated construction cost: $50 million

Project phase: operational

Addition - Brandon Correctional Centre

Location: Brandon

Net capacity gain: 80 beds

Estimated construction cost: $5.7 million

Project phase: operational

Addition - The Pas Correctional Centre (phase I)

Location: The Pas

Net capacity gain: 40 beds

Estimated construction cost: $3 million

Project phase: construction

Addition - Millner Ridge Correctional Centre (phase II)

Location: Beauséjour

Net capacity gain: 64 beds

Estimated construction cost: $17 million

Project phase: construction

Addition - Millner Ridge Correctional Centre (phase III)

Location: Beauséjour

Net capacity gain: 160 beds

Estimated construction cost: $25 million

Project phase: construction

Saskatchewan

New Remand Centre / Prison

New Provincial Correctional Centre

Location: Regina

Net capacity gain: 211 beds

Estimated construction cost: $50.3 million

Project phase: operational

New Remand Centre

Location: Saskatoon

Net capacity gain: 427 beds

Estimated construction cost: $87 million

Project phase: procurement

Addition - Saskatoon Provincial Correctional Centre

Location: Saskatoon

Net capacity gain: 90 beds

Estimated construction cost: $5.8 million

Project phase: operational

Addition - Pine Grove Correctional Centre

Location: Prince Albert

Net capacity gain: 32 cells

Estimated construction cost: $12 million

Project phase: procurement

Alberta

New Remand Centre - New Edmonton Remand Centre

Location: Edmonton

Net capacity gain: 1,218 beds

Estimated construction cost: $568.5 million

Project phase: construction

* An additional 3 pods totalling 864 beds may be constructed should it be deemed necessary.

British Columbia

New Remand Centre - Surrey Pre-trial Services Centre

Location: Surrey

Net capacity gain: 324 beds

Estimated construction cost: $112.5 million

Project phase: construction

New Prison

Location: Okanagan

Net capacity gain: 540 beds

Estimated construction cost: $200 million (to be approved)

Project phase: site selection

Addition - Kamloops Regional Correctional Centre

Location: Kamloops

Net capacity gain: 50 beds

Estimated construction cost: $14 million

(includes project costs for 100-bed FRCC and 24-bed ACC additions)

Project phase: operational

Addition - Fraser Regional Correctional Centre

Location: Maple Ridge

Net capacity gain: 100 beds

Estimated construction cost: see above

Project phase: operational

Addition - Alouette Correctional Centre for Women

Location: Maple Ridge

Net capacity gain: 24 beds

Estimated construction cost: see above

Project phase: operational

Addition - Alouette Correctional Centre for Women

Location: Maple Ridge

Net capacity gain: 156 beds

Estimated construction cost: $43.5 million

Project phase: construction

Addition - Prince George Regional Correctional Centre

Location: Prince George

Net capacity gain: 30 beds

Estimated construction cost: $11.5 million

Project phase: operational

Nunavut

New Prison - Women's Correctional Centre

Location: Iqaluit

Net capacity gain: 8 beds

Estimated construction cost: $2.9 million

Project phase: operational

New Prison - Men's Correctional Centre

Location: Rankin Inlet

Net capacity gain: 46 beds

Estimated construction cost: $29.4 million

Project phase: construction

Northwest Territories

Replacement Prison

New Territorial Women's Correctional Centre

Location: Fort Smith

Net capacity gain: 27-32 beds

Estimated construction cost: to be determined

Project phase: preliminary planning

Yukon

Replacement Prison - New Yukon Correctional Centre

Location: Whitehorse

Net capacity gain: 87 beds

Estimated construction cost: $63 million

Project phase: construction

What 'Austerity' and 'Small Government' Looks Like in Ottawa

2011-06-21T07:40:00.018-04:00

With the majority Conservative Government of Canada in power for seven weeks, there has been a lot of talk in Ottawa about what measures will be taken in the years ahead to reign in the federal deficit and work towards balanced budgets. Cuts to the public service and user fees for government services have been some of the measures said to be considered by Treasury Board President Tony Clement, the new axe-and-taxman in the nation's capital.

After weeks of speculation, Clement's axe has begun to fall. According to Bill Curry of the Globe and Mail (read article here), "[t]hirteen federal organizations promised in the 2011 budget to cut a combined $2.6 billion over three years under a strategic program called strategic review". Yesterday, cuts to Public Works (687 jobs), the Treasury Board (19 jobs), Fisheries and Oceans (approximately 275 jobs), the Bank of Canada (80 to 95 jobs), Environment Canada (50 jobs) and the National Gallery (5 jobs) were reported. And this is just the beginning.

Luckily for the soon to be unemployed federal public servants the political party of 'austerity' and 'small government' appears to have a plan to replace their jobs - they have a prison for that. In 2010, the projected budget for the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) was $2.46 billion (read here, p. 11). The projected full-time equivalent staffing allocation was 16,587 employees (ibid). According to this year's edition of CSC's Report on Plans and Priorities (read here), the projected budget for CSC is $2.98 billion (up 21.2 percent from 2010-2011 projections, p. 7), while the projected full-time equivalent staffing allocation is 20,408 employees (up 23 percent from 2010-2011 projections).

These figures do not signal the beginning nor the end of rising budgets and staffing levels in this federal government penal porkfolio. Since the Liberals left office, CSC's annual budget has increased 86.7 percent from $1.597 billion in 2005-2006. By 2012-2013, expenditures in this area are projected to rise to $3.178 billion before it modestly declines to $3.147 billion in 2013-2014. Under the Conservatives, CSC's annual staffing allocation has increased 39.2 percent from 14,663 full-time equivalent employees in 2005-2006. By 2012-2013, it is projected that there will be 21,713 full-time equivalent staff working for CSC. Close to another 350 jobs in Canada's penitentiary system will be available in 2013-2014 where 22,061 staff are set to be employed.

This is not small government, but a different kind of big government. It is another step towards the replacement of what conservative commentators call a 'nanny state' with a 'daddy state' that has a belt ready in case his citizen children step out of line. This is what 'austerity' looks like in Ottawa under the Conservatives and it's going to hurt in more ways than one. It is not only a costly, harmful, ineffective and unjust approach to addressing the complex harms and conflicts that we call 'crime', but also to governance more generally.

THE NUMBERS - CANADA'S FEDERAL PENITENTIARY SYSTEM

CSC Budget Allocation (millions)

2005-2006 revised (under the Liberals): $1,597.2

2006-2007 projected and revised: $1,709.4 ($1,709.3)

2007-2008 projected and revised: $1,870.0

2008-2009 projected and revised: $2,174.2 ($2,296.7)

2009-2010 projected and revised: $2,204.5 ($2,267.2)

2010-2011 projected and revised: $2,460.2 ($2,467.5)

2011-2012 projected: $2,981.9

2012-2013 projected: $3,178.2

2013-2014 projected: $3,147.5

CSC Capital Expenditures (millions)

2005-2006 revised (under the Liberals): $138.2

2006-2007 projected and revised: $162 ($161.9)

2007-2008 projected and revised: $153.7

2008-2009 projected and revised: $263.6

2009-2010 projected and revised: $230.8 ($246.8)

2010-2011 projected and revised: $329.4 ($277.3)

2011-2012 projected: $517.6

2012-2013 projected: $466.9

2013-2014 projected: $385.8

CSC Staffing Allocation

2005-2006 (under the Liberals): 14,663

2006-2007: 14,829

2007-2008: 15,491

2008-2009: 15,945

2009-2010: 16,029

2010-2011: 16,587

2011-2012 projected: 20,408

2012-2013 projected: 21,713

2013-2014 projected: 22,061

The Need for a National Conversation on 'Crime', Prevention, and Meeting the Needs of the Victimized and Criminalized

2011-05-16T15:46:00.007-04:00

* Conservative MP John Baird announced today that Parliament would resume business on June 2nd. The omnibus 'crime' bill, or bills, are among the measures that are expected to be introduced in the short-term (read article by CTV News). Below is the unedited (and longer) version of an article I submitted at the beginning of last month on the need to chart an alternative path to achieving safe communities that appeared in the May 2011 edition of The Monitor.

-----

Canada at a Crossroads

In a context where the economic, political and social costs of increasing our reliance on incarceration are widely known, federal and provincial-territorial governments are in the process of establishing 10,600 new prison spaces with an infrastructure cost of $3.6 billion and rising (note: with the April 11th announcement of funding for the South West Detention Centre in Windsor, Ontario this tab not sits at just under $4 billion). These expenditures do not account for the costs of managing and operating these spaces, which each cost the provinces and territories an average of $59,057 and the federal government close to $118,000 every year according to 2008- 2009 figures compiled by Statistics Canada.

That this money is being spent when research has shown that increasing the use of imprisonment has a negligible impact on ‘crime’ unless pursued to a point where any short-term benefit derived is far outweighed by the long-term consequences is dubious, particularly when it has been shown that for every $1 spent on prevention, taxpayers save $7 that is spent when someone is incarcerated.

That our prisons have become dumping grounds for those suffering from addictions to drugs and mental illnesses, the poor, colonized Aboriginal peoples and other marginalized groups is a legacy no Canadian should be proud to call their own. That we allocate almost 100 times more money to our prisons than for victims at the federal level is doubly shameful.

The road we are taking is not a path to enhanced safety in our communities. It is an approach that will lead to more victimization in the name of victims, communities eviscerated of social services in the name of public safety, and a deepening of inequality in Canadian society in the name of justice. And worst of all, this approach will not work.

While it would be easy to attribute responsibility to the Conservatives, the truth of the matter is that there are other factors in play and that in a minority government situation it takes two to tango. As such, there is plenty of blame to go around. This is made evident in the election platforms put forward by all major political parties who have left space – to a greater or lesser extent – for the infliction of pain via imprisonment. Those who aspire to represent us in office do this while spending more time calling each other names (e.g. ‘soft on crime’, ‘dumb on crime’, etc...) and asserting their own ‘tough on crime’ credentials than engaging in meaningful dialogue about what it means to be safe and how these aspirations can be realized.

With the 41st Parliament of Canada set to begin we are again at a crossroads, with the opportunity to rethink what is ‘crime’, how we can prevent it, and how we can meet the needs of those impacted by it. It is an opportunity that should be taken up not only by the next federal government and their provincial-territorial counterparts, but also individuals and groups who represent the diverse social fabric of this country and have a stake in meeting this challenge head on.

Building safe communities cannot simply be left to the police, lawyers, judges, prison and parole officials, and certainly not to the politicians. As citizens, both in name and/or in spirit, we must assume our civic responsibilities and recommit ourselves to building the neighbourhoods in which we want to live.

A National Conversation

As it stands, our approach to addressing the conflicts and harms in our communities that we call ‘crime’ is woefully simplistic given the complexities of the challenges we face. And as a consequence, the needs that are engendered often go unmet, leaving a legacy of trauma that far too many of us live with on a daily basis. This is wrong.

Irrespective of whether the rate of ‘crime’ – reported or unreported – is going up, down, or remains stable, no is disputing whether or not something should be done. What the focus of a national conversation should be is on how scarce resources can be allocated to prevent ‘crime’, and best meet the needs of the victimized and criminalized. Whether supported by a new federal government or not, we need a public forum to work towards achieving these objectives in a manner where all related issues and policy options are put on the table for democratic debate.

This discussion could be guided by a number of substantive questions related to effectiveness (e.g. Is there evidence that the measures proposed will work?), fairness (e.g. Do the measures proposed respect the human rights and meet the needs of all affected parties?), and value-for-money (e.g. What is the social return on investment of the measures proposed and is their implementation warranted?), among others.

For such an initiative to serve its stated purpose, a number of procedural principles would have to be in place. If the goal is to generate ideas on how to conceptualize and respond to ‘crime’ in a manner that is inclusive, the forum must operate in a way that reflects this objective in its own practice by being open to all who wish to submit testimony, evidence and proposals in various forms of expression, not simply policy briefs and the standard oral presentation.

Provisions would also need to be made to ensure that as many Canadians who wish to participate can, which would require a mechanism to allow for involvement from a distance. Open access and transparency would also be central to such a forum, with all submissions, hearings, as well as reports and related background documents made available to the public to foster further discussion and debate.

Towards Safer Communities

This brief overview of a proposal for a national conversation on ‘crime’, prevention, and meeting the needs of the victimized and criminalized is intended to spark a broader discussion on how we can work towards safer communities. It is not intended to set the terms of the debate, but to provide an idea of what such a forum could look like in the hopes that others will provide their input and bring us closer to having this much needed broad-based discussion.

The success of such an initiative, if it is to get off the ground, depends on a number of things including adequate representation of stakeholders, facilitators that are perceived to be credible, the availability of resources to support the process and above all, the will amongst interested individuals and groups to take the necessary time to engage in meaningful conversations about these important issues.

There are also many pitfalls that could be encountered. For instance, should such a national conversation be facilitated by governments, it is possible that the process would be poisoned by political grandstanding, and the recommendations produced and adopted would not result in fundamental change or safer communities. On the other hand, a national conversation facilitated independently of governments may not receive the attention or recognition deserved from decision makers and the public more broadly as such a forum is not well suited to those who wish to take ‘immediate action’.

At the same time, I would argue that should such a national conversation not take place we will not be any closer to preventing ‘crimes’ or meeting the needs of those who are impacted by them when they do occur. With much to be gained and a lot to lose, we need to get to work.

"Safe Jail": Another Short-sighted Carceral 'Solution'

2011-04-19T07:10:00.010-04:00

It is becoming increasingly recognized that our prisons have become dumping grounds for individuals suffering from drug addictions and mental illnesses. Rather than question the criminalization of vulnerable populations, progressively-intentioned carceral 'solutions' have been proposed.

For the Office of the Correctional Investigator of Canada (read 2009-2010 report) what is needed is more access to specialized programming for affected federal prisoners by taking steps to hire and retain mental health professionals as well as other staff who are equipped to deal with them, eliminating the prolonged use of segregation for at risk prisoners in favour access to specialized therapeutic units, and permanent funding to support the care and prevention of self-harm for these individuals.

At the provincial-territorial level, the response has been to build new facilities to better address the needs of what is dubbed a changing prisoner population composed of a greater number of individuals addicted to drugs and with mental illnesses than in previous years. Some have also called for the creation of "safe jails" (read 14 February article by CBC News) and it is this proposal I want to focus on.

The first time I really became familiar with the "safe jails" concept was during a 11 March 2011 presentation by Calgary Police Chief Rick Hanson at the John Howard Society of Canada National Staff Conference. During his presentation, Chief Hanson described a number of initiatives being undertaken by his police force to help divert individuals with mental illness, drug addictions, or both, who come into conflict with the law away from Alberta's overcrowded remand centres, including pairing officers with social workers to help individuals coping with these issues that they come into contact with. He also talked about a push for mental health and drug treatment courts.

Following this, Chief Hanson spoke at length about the "safe jail" he hoped would be established at a closed prison in Kananaskis. The re-opened and retrofitted facility would provide "secure treatment" for prisoners and those who would refuse assistance, be disruptive or pose a threat to institutional security would be given the alternative to serve the rest of their time in a remand centre or prison.

Notwithstanding the human rights issues that could be raised concerning this form of 'voluntary' treatment, I was struck by the "secure treatment" concept. I was struck by it because I had seen it - or something very similar to it - many times before in various reports written as part of the Royal Commissions, task forces and reviews of the federal penitentiary system that have been commissioned in the past half century. Almost all of these reports make the following observation: the fact that security always takes precedence over treatment makes prisons inconducive to rehabilitation.

Although this universal carceral is acknowledged, most reports go on to recommend that more resources be diverted towards treatment, a path that perpetuates the use of simple carceral 'solutions' to address complex issues that inevitability brings us to the same place - more reviews regarding the failure of imprisonment that triggers another cycle of 'reform' that looks awfully like the ones that preceded it.

During the Q&A at with Chief Hanson, I praised him for his acknowledgement of the challenges faced by criminalized populations, but also pointed to Canada's history of "secure treatment" and asked him why he thought that the outcome of this project would be any different. I also asked what would be done in cases where prisoners coming down from drugs or attempting to cope with mental illness at a "safe jail" would "freak out" and disturb the good order of the institution. He responded that prisoners in this facility would have the choice of following their treatment or being sent to a remand centre or prison. "A prison for every problem", I sarcastically quipped under my breath as I sat back down knowing full well that if the "safe jail" experiment is allowed to fly we will once again legitimate the criminalization and infliction of pain via imprisonment for these marginalized individuals.

Building newer, bigger and/or specialized prisons should not construed with taking action. If the best solution we can come up with to the complex issues many of our neighbours, friends, family members and fellow human beings face - whether it be drug addiction, mental illness, the lingering impact of colonization and assimilation, seeking refuge from political violence at home - is a prison, as far as I'm concerned we've found no solution at all. In kicking the ball further down the field for future generations of Canadians to deal with, the path we're on is not one towards building safe communities - it is a road to community disintegration where issues are left unresolved.

What are the alternatives? At this point, I'm not sure as I'm still thinking about how to address the shortcomings in our health and mental health systems that aren't meeting the needs of an increasing number of Canadians. Perhaps, proponents of incarceration need to spend a little more time thinking about these gaps in what's left of Canada's social safety net before wasting our tax dollars on another expensive prison experiment that is destined to fail.

The 'Other' is We

2011-04-16T14:42:00.005-04:00

(listen to song here)

They’re building new prisons
In our backyards
Take you a look around
They’re not very far
From being erected
To house the rejected
More ‘crime’ to come
That’s fuckin’ expected

They say these new prisons
Will save us some money
When they were adding things up
They must’ve been drinking the rummy
Add and subtract
And still don’t see
How these the mother fuckin’ prisons
Gonna benefit me

A drug addict in one cell
Bi-polar in the other
Walk across the wing
An Aboriginal brother
3% of Canada’s population
And a large chunk of our prison nation
Does that sit well with you when you demand
Mass incarceration and boots in the sand?
If not then raise your mother fuckin’ hands
It’s time to take, to take a stand

Chorus:
Oh, it’s you
Oh, it’s me
The ‘other’ is we

We can blame this on Harper
But that just won’t do
Get ‘tough on crime’
Something they all claim to do
Complicit, implicit
And no sympathy
For those they say
Are ‘not like you and me’

More victimization
What prisons dispense
Fuck the facts yo
We got ‘common sense’
They deepen inequality
In the name of justice
What are the costs?
Won’t tell, they don’t fucking trust us

'Prisons are safe'
Tell that to Ashley Smith’s mother
Our walk to her grave
And ask if she’d like another
Life not taken away
For throwing crab apples
Some sun, a beach
Enjoying a Snapple

I criticize
Ya I’m ‘soft on crime’
A real live Pillsbury Doughboy
Spiting out rhymes
Oh, it’s me
Oh, it’s you
Your sons and daughters in new prisons
Whatchu gonna do?

Chorus:
Oh, it’s you
Oh, it’s me
The ‘other’ is we

They talk about conditions
With vile rhyme and reason
Talkin’ bout prisoners
Like they’re livin’ in the Four Seasons
Ya its Club Fed
Fed the fuck up
With your bullshit lies
That you blow and suck

In high school
I remember the ‘useful crisis’
So damn useful
They fuckin’ divided us
Here comes the wedge
Between ‘us’ and ‘them’
Tell em’ to shove it
And return to send(er)

You’re fire, you’re brimstone
It’s misplaced
Lives are for living
Not human waste
Recycling prisoners
The only thing you do
That and giving jobs
To the screws

You got a problem?
They got a prison for that
You can’t solve them?
They got a prison for that

Chorus:
Oh, it’s you
Oh, it’s me
The ‘other’ is we

The Provincial-Territorial Penal Infrastructure Tab Now Sits at $3.385 Billion

2011-04-14T07:35:00.014-04:00

This past Monday, the Government of Ontario announced that the contract to design, build, finance and maintain the new 315-bed South West Detention Centre in Windsor had been awarded (read 11 April press release). The value of the contract is close to $336 million over 30-years. Ontario taxpayers can also look forward to paying the prison mortgage for the $1.1 billion 1,650-bed Toronto South Detention Centre over this period (read 28 October 2009 press release).

It should be noted that the price tag does not include the expenditures to operate and manage each of these new prisoner beds at a cost of $179.97 or $65,689 a year. In fact, when the facilities they are replacing are each 140 beds and 550 beds respectively, it is difficult to understand how adding 1,275 spaces to the province's prison system at an annual cost of almost $84 million amounts to savings for the taxpayer (read 31 March post), even if the province manages to save $8 million by closing other facilities in Owen Sound, Walkerton and Sarnia (read 2011 Ontario Budget, p. 75). If reduced government expenditures is what Premier Dalton McGuinty and company are after, the numbers simply don't add up.

With the announcement of the contract for the South West Detention Centre, the tab for building 23 new prisons and 16 additions to existing facilities at the provincial-territorial level - projects that will add 7,348 new prisoner beds - is now $3.385 billion.

Add this to the $601 million cost to build new units on the grounds of existing federal penitentiaries that will add 2,552 new prisoner beds (read 14 February post), along with the planned 700 additional spaces created via double-bunking (read 22 June 2010 editorial by Head), governments across the country are well on their way towards building the infrastructure for Canada's emerging penal state.

PROVINCIAL-TERRITORIAL PENAL INFRASTRUCTURE INITIATIVES

(2006 - present)

* This data was originally compiled during the primary data collection phase of my doctoral dissertation from January 2009 to May 2010. This component of the project relied on the use of informal information requests by phone and e-mail, as well as Access to Information and Freedom of Information requests. Since my May 2010 submission and presentation to the Provincial-Territorial Heads of Corrections (read 30 May 2010 post for presentation notes / report available upon request), the information was updated based on figures made available via press releases published from May 2010 to February 2011. As I prepared my brief and presentation to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security (read 3 March post for presentation notes / brief available upon request), the provinces and territories were again given the opportunity to verify my findings and provide feedback.

Newfoundland and Labrador

Replacement Prison(s)

1 or 2 - for Her Majesty's Penitentiary

Location(s): to be determined

Net capacity gain: to be determined

Estimated construction cost: to be determined

Project phase: on hold

* Studying the impacts of federal legislation prior to implementation

New Remand Centre

Labrador Remand Centre for Youth, the Mentally Ill and Women

Location(s): to be determined

Net capacity gain: to be determined

Estimated construction cost: to be determined

Project phase: on hold

* Studying the impacts of federal legislation prior to implementation

Prince Edward Island

Addition - Provincial Correctional Centre

Location: Charlottetown

Net capacity gain: 48 beds

Estimated construction cost: $3.4 million

Project phase: operational

Replacement Remand Centre / Prison

Prince County Correctional Centre

Location: Summerside

Net capacity gain: 42 beds

Estimated construction cost: $18.5 million

Project phase: on hold

* Studying the impacts of federal legislation prior to implementation

Nova Scotia

Replacement Prison

Location: Coalburn

Net capacity gain: 164 beds

Estimated construction cost: $31.3 million

Project phase: procurement

New Brunswick

Replacement for the Moncton Detention Centre

Southeast Correctional Centre

Location: Shediac

Net capacity gain: 122 beds

Estimated construction cost: $36 million

Project phase: construction

Replacement Prison

New Dalhousie Correctional Centre

Location: Dalhousie

Net capacity gain: 70 beds

Estimated construction cost: $20 million

Project phase: construction

Québec

New Replacement Prison

Location: Sept-Îles

Net capacity gain: 28 beds

Estimated construction cost: $78 million

Project phase: procurement

New Replacement Prison

Location: Roberval

Net capacity gain: 31 beds

Estimated construction cost: $107 million

Project phase: procurement

New Replacement Prison

Location: Sorel-Tracy

Net capacity gain: 149 beds

Estimated construction cost: $143 million

Project phase: construction

New Replacement Prison

Location: Amos

Net capacity gain: 84 beds

Estimated construction cost: $111 million

Project phase: procurement

Closed Prison Retrofit and Re-opening

Location: Percé

Net capacity gain: 46 beds

Estimated construction cost: $11 million

Project phase: operational

Addition - Établissement de détention

Location: Québec

Net capacity gain: 96 beds

Estimated construction cost: $19 million

(shared with other additions)

Project phase: construction

Addition - Établissement de détention

Location: Amos

Net capacity gain: 36 beds

Estimated construction cost: $19 million

(shared with other additions)

Project phase: construction

Addition - Établissement de détention

Location: Trois-Rivières

Net capacity gain: 96 beds

Estimated construction cost: $19 million

(shared with other additions)

Project phase: construction

Addition - Établissement de détention

Location: Sherbrooke

Net capacity gain: 96 beds

Estimated construction cost: $19 million

(shared with other additions)

Project phase: construction

Ontario

New Remand/Intermittent Centre -

Toronto South Detention Centre / Toronto Intermittent Centre

Location: Toronto

Net capacity gain: 1,100 beds

Estimate construction cost: $1.1 billion

Project phase: construction

New Remand Centre - South West Detention Centre

Location: Windsor

Net capacity gain: 175 beds

Estimate construction cost: to be announced

Project phase: contract awarded

Manitoba

Replacement Prison

New Prison for Women

Location: Headingly

Net capacity gain: 55 beds

Estimated construction cost: $60 million

Project phase: construction

Addition - Millner Ridge Correctional Centre (phase I)

Location: Beauséjour

Net capacity gain: 160 beds

Estimated construction cost: $50 million

Project phase: operational

Addition - Brandon Correctional Centre

Location: Brandon

Net capacity gain: 80 beds

Estimated construction cost: $5.7 million

Project phase: operational

Addition - The Pas Correctional Centre (phase I)

Location: The Pas

Net capacity gain: 40 beds

Estimated construction cost: $3 million

Project phase: construction

Addition - Millner Ridge Correctional Centre (phase II)

Location: Beauséjour

Net capacity gain: 64 beds

Estimated construction cost: $17 million

Project phase: construction

Addition - Millner Ridge Correctional Centre (phase III)

Location: Beauséjour

Net capacity gain: 160 beds

Estimated construction cost: $25 million

Project phase: procurement

Saskatchewan

New Remand Centre / Prison

New Provincial Correctional Centre

Location: Regina

Net capacity gain: 211 beds

Estimate construction cost: $50.3 million

Project phase: operational

New Remand Centre

Location: Saskatoon

Net capacity gain: 427 beds

Estimate construction cost: $87 million

Project phase: procurement

Addition - Saskatoon Provincial Correctional Centre

Location: Saskatoon

Net capacity gain: 90 beds

Estimate construction cost: $5.8 million

Project phase: operational

Alberta

New Remand Centre - New Edmonton Remand Centre

Location: Edmonton

Net capacity gain: 1,944 beds

Estimate construction cost: $568.5 million

Project phase: construction

British Columbia

New Remand Centre - Surrey Pre-trial Services Centre

Location: Surrey

Net capacity gain: 432 beds

Estimated construction cost: $130 million

Project phase: procurement

New Prison

Location: Okanagan

Net capacity gain: 720 beds

Estimated construction cost: $200 million (to be approved)

Project phase: site selection

Addition - Kamloops Regional Correctional Centre

Location: Kamloops

Net capacity gain: 50 beds

Estimated construction cost: $14 million

(includes project costs for 100-bed FRCC and 24-bed ACC additions)

Project phase: operational

Addition - Fraser Regional Correctional Centre

Location: Maple Ridge

Net capacity gain: 100 beds

Estimated construction cost: see above

Project phase: operational

Addition - Alouette Correctional Centre for Women

Location: Maple Ridge

Net capacity gain: 24 beds

Estimated construction cost: see above

Project phase: operational

Addition - Alouette Correctional Centre

Location: Maple Ridge

Net capacity gain: 208 beds

Estimated construction cost: $43.5 million

Project phase: construction

Addition - Prince George Regional Correctional Centre

Location: Prince George

Net capacity gain: 24 beds

Estimated construction cost: $11.5 million

Project phase: operational

Nunavut

New Prison - Women's Correctional Centre

Location: Iqaluit

Net capacity gain: 8 beds

Estimated construction cost: $2.9 million

Project phase: operational

New Prison - Men's Correctional Centre

Location: Rankin Inlet

Net capacity gain: 46 beds

Estimated construction cost: $29.4 million

Project phase: construction

Northwest Territories

Replacement Prison

New Territorial Women's Correctional Centre

Location: Fort Smith

Net capacity gain: 27-32 beds

Estimated construction cost: to be determined

Project phase: preliminary planning

Yukon

Replacement Prison - New Yukon Correctional Centre

Location: Whitehorse

Net capacity gain: 87 beds

Estimated construction cost: $67 million

Project phase: construction

A Note on the Bloc's Punishment Platform

2011-04-13T08:26:00.009-04:00

"With respect to justice, the Québec nation wants an effective system based on justice rather than on retribution. Quebeckers do not want a repressive society that closes the door to rehabilitation and where guns circulate freely. Demagogic, alarmist and dogmatic positions clash with Québec’s positions.

Between Conservative ideology and Liberal and NDP reluctance, as evidenced during recent debates on the Gun Registry and the treatment of young offenders, the Bloc Québécois is the only party that stands up to ensure that justice protects the public and that it does not serve to further an ideology, without being lenient, as seen with the abolition of automatic parole after one-sixth of the sentence has been served.

Quebeckers like respect and dialogue. A belligerent foreign policy, where solidarity gives way to threats and law to force, is against our values. The Bloc Québécois does not hesitate to say: when it comes to justice, Stephen Harper’s Canada is downright disquieting and even dangerous".

- 2011 Bloc Québecois Election Platform, p. 19.

Since 2006, the Bloc Québecois has been the voice in opposition that has most often opposed the Conservative punishment agenda that privileges incapacitation, deterrence, denunciation and a particular vision of proportionality over the pursuit of rehabilitation. With that said, their recent involvement in the drafting and passage of the Abolition of Early Parole Act - a law which eliminated eligibility for all first-time, non-violent 'offenders' to be paroled and supervised in the community at one-sixth of their sentences in the name of Vincent Lacroix and other 'white collar criminals' - signals the degree to which the Bloc is willing to engage in populist punitiveness when it suits their electioneering needs.

While much of their 2011 election platform (read here) is not focussed on 'just us' measures, the Bloc has committed to oppose attempts to eliminate the long-gun registry, resist attempts to limit the sentencing discretion of judges, and encourage the rehabilitation and reintegration of youth into society, while also supporting getting "tougher on organized crime, street gangs and white collar criminals" (pp. 20-22).

Given the lack of specific measures the Bloc would support to achieve these penal policy stances, a few points of clarification are required. For instance, if the party wishes to preserve judicial discretion, how does it reconcile this position with their recent support of the Standing up for Victims of White Collar Crime Act which included mandatory minimum sentences? Is this not an example of restricting judicial discretion? And does getting 'tougher' on the other categories of 'crime' listed above also mean that the Bloc will again sacrifice its position on judicial discretion in the future? If so, what is the justification and does an emphasis on sentencing serve to prevent such harms from taking place or restore what victims have lost?

Given the Bloc's proclivity to attack the Conservatives for their ideological stance on how to address the complex conflicts and harms in our communities that we call 'crime', their willingness to make use of the same taglines and adopt sentencing measures in certain cases that fly in the face of their broader position on such issues requires, in my view, an explanation. Then again, maybe not in a political climate where sucking and blowing at the same time is par for the course.

Questions on the NDP's "Prevention, Protection and Prosecution" Platform

2011-04-11T20:20:00.013-04:00

Last Thursday, the NDP released their plan for "safer streets" (read press release / watch video). NDP Leader Jack Layton sought to distinguish his party's approach to the complex conflicts and harms in our communities that we call 'crime' from the approach the Conservatives have taken in government, noting:

"Stephen Harper's crime strategy relies on things to happen before we do anything about it and I believe that that's wrong. I believe in working with local governments and local community groups and local police officers to tackle crime before it happens".

To substantiate this claim, Layton and the NDP put forward a three pillar plan focussing of "prevention", "protection" and "prosecution", with specific initiatives outlined to meet these broader objectives. Below, I will list the measures proposed in the NDP's 2011 election platform released this past Sunday, followed by comments and questions I have about this plan.

Measure 1:

"We will ensure that communities have the resources they need to invest in crime prevention programs, particularly those targeting youth, by increasing federal support to crime prevention initiatives from $65 million to $100 million per year" (p. 16).

If we know that incarceration is ineffective, the objective should be to shift resources away from the prison system towards approaches that produce significant returns on social investment. Preventing victimization in the first place and the chain of events that lead to a person being criminalized and sent to prison is one approach that does just this as it's been shown that for every $1 spent on prevention, taxpayers save $7 that would be spent when someone is incarcerated (Waller, 2006). While a $100 million investment is a slight improvement, it will not go a long way in supporting the robust national prevention strategy the NDP wants to be in place. The NDP needs to be asked why it hasn't put more dollars behind its promise of prevention.

Measure 2:

"We will work with the provinces, territories, and First Nations communities to provide stable, multi-year funding to eventually put at least 2,500 new police officers on the streets, and keep them there permanently" (p. 16).

While common sense tells us that putting more boots on the ground would help to prevent 'crime' in our communities, those who advocate for such measures are not acknowledging the fact that many who come into conflict with the law often face a number of challenges related to employment, housing, health, mental health and other issues. Although the NDP has traditionally addressed these broader socio-economic issues in their platforms and politicking more generally, one wonders why this doesn't translate into their penal policy platform. Police officers are often not trained enough to address the social issues they are called upon to deal with. As such, perhaps resources could be better spent on hiring social workers to accompany police officers to help them address the complex issues they face on a daily basis and to meet the needs of the citizens they serve.

Measure 3:

"We will give parents, teachers and police more tools to protect our children by making gang recruiting illegal, and establishing a comprehensive Correctional Anti-Gang Strategy to ensure that prisons do not serve as "crime schools" to train gang-involved offenders" (p. 16).

Although making gang recruiting illegal may sound like a good idea, given that broad definition of what constitutes a gang in the Criminal Code of Canada, where will the line be drawn should this bill be implemented? Put differently, what exactly constitutes an attempt to recruit someone into a gang? Without a clear answer to this question, it is highly probable that many people who are or aren't affiliated to gangs could easily find themselves diverted into the penal system.

As for the proposal for the introduction of an anti-gang strategy in prisons so that they don't serve as "crime schools", the NDP is making a promise that simply can't be met. The prison community is a world unto its own and there is no shortage of literature pointing to this universal carceral. The only thing that such a reform would offer is greater legitimacy for the use of imprisonment, an approach that is costly, ineffective and unjust by virtue of the composition of those who are in there. If you're going to do anything to break the cycle of criminalization and incarceration, offering more opportunities for education (read Duguid, 2000), that would provide individuals with a way out of gangs through the accumulation of knowledge, would be more advisable.

Measure 4:

"We will create new, stand-alone offences for home invasions and carjackings" (p. 16).

In response to this proposal, which to me appears at first glance to be more cosmetic than a significant addition to the Criminal Code of Canada, I have a number of questions. What is the need for such legislative changes? What are these changes intended to accomplish? How will the victimized and criminalized persons affected be better served by such measures? What underlying issues are not addressed when a discussion on theft is focussed of re-branding acts instead of addressing the factors that contribute to these acts, including poverty? For me these questions must be answered, because I'm not at all sure what such measures, if enacted, would accomplish.

Measure 5:

"We will enact, the so-called "Lucky Moose" bill - a law that would allow citizens to detain criminals within "a reasonable amount of time" after a crime is committed" (p. 16).

Other than its populist appeal, does this proposal accomplish anything in terms of enhancing safety in our communities? I'm not sure what additional legitimacy for vigilanteism will accomplish other than opening up new spaces for the encroachment of civil liberties based on the best judgements of individuals not trained to decide whether someone may have been in conflict with the law and requires temporary detention. Perhaps more importantly, such measures implicitly encourage people to take risks that could put their safety in jeopardy. Not exactly a recipe for 'public safety'.

Measure 6:

"We will ensure that appropriate care, treatment, and interventions are available for mentally ill offenders in prison, as recommended by the Correctional Investigator of Canada" (p. 16).

We have a long history of Royal Commissions, task forces and other reviews that have assessed our prisons. On one hand, the reports produced reveal that the prison is unable to deliver on its promises other than those of punishment and control. On the other hand, the remedy for the problems in our prisons has been to 'reform' our prisons, to invest more resources in their administration and offer new programs to prisoners in pursuit of "rehabilitation", "treatment" and "care".

That we, as a society, prefer to perpetuate the failed experiment of imprisonment instead of asking ourselves how things could otherwise be done differently is a dubious legacy. That the incarceration of the mentally ill, the creation of "safe jails" for those addicted to drugs (read 14 February article by the Calgary Herald) and the the like are seen as acceptable solutions to complex issues illustrates the degree in which criminalization and punishment is coming to replace social welfare apparatuses in this country - a trend that even the NDP is now legitimating.

Given the track record of prisons, where prisoners who succeed arguably do so in spite of the system not because of it, or prisoners walk out worse than they came in, if at all (watch the Fifth Estate), the prison solution ought to be seen as no solution at all. We can't imprison our way out of the challenges we face, no matter how much lipstick we apply to the carceral pig.

A $100 million investment in prevention, 2,500 new police officers, and a series of designer legislative proposals is hardly a game changer when billions of dollars are being spent on expanding prisons across the country to warehouse those we would rather forget about than help.

A Reality Check on the Costs of the Conservative Punishment Agenda

2011-04-09T08:33:00.033-04:00

In a scene that looked more like a low-production talk show than the launch of an election platform (read 8 April article by Ivison), the Conservatives revealed their baggie of goodies to Canadians which included, among other things, money to compensate Québec for their HST transition that the Bloc Québecois had unsuccessfully lobbied for in exchange for their support on the budget just a few short weeks ago. A clear sign that this was an election the Conservatives desperately wanted to avoid. Wink, wink, nudge, nudge.

Like its predecessors in 2006 and 2008, the 2011 edition of the Conservative punishment agenda (pages 34-37, 45-51, 55-56) is presented as not being tough on taxpayers if one is to limit their analysis to the price tags attached to their proposals provided on page 65 of their platform.

Below is a list of Conservative proposals with new costs listed in their platform:

- "Support Victims of Crime", $60 million in new funding each year beginning in 2012-2013 ($240 million over the next 5 years);

- "Drug-Free Prisons", $10 million in new funding each year beginning in 2012-2013 ($40 million over the next 5 years);

- "Combating Human Trafficking", $5 million in new funding each year beginning in 2012-2013 ($20 million over the next 5 years);

- "Ending Sentence Discounts for Multiple Child Pornography and Sex Offences", $50 million in new funding each year beginning in 2012-2013 ($200 million over the next 5 years);

- "Tackling Contraband Tobacco", $10 million in new funding each year beginning in 2012-2013 ($40 million over the next 5 years); and

- "Helping At-Risk Youth Avoid Gangs and Criminal Activity", no new money as $8 million a year is already earmarked ($40 million over the next 5 years).

While there are a number of questions that could be asked about each of these policies, a few of which I support that should be allocated additional funds at the expense of new prison spending (e.g. funding for victims and youth), the Conservatives, as well as their political rivals, need to be pressed on how they arrive at their figures to allow for a full debate on the merits of these proposals.

As noted by the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer in a February 2010 report (read here), budget projections involving the Correctional Service of Canada ought to include the following: “analysis, key assumptions, drivers, and methodologies behind the figures presented. Further, basic statistics such as headcounts, annual inflows, unit costs per inmate, per full-time equivalent (FTE) employee, and per new cell construction have not been made public”.

While I'm not arguing that this kind of detail has historically been included in the platforms of any political party in Canada or necessarily should be as it would probably discourage many voters from reading it, all aspiring office holders should be asked about how they arrived at their numbers and respond with the details listed above so that Canadians can have as clear of an understanding as possible about the implications of the policies of those they vote for.

It also needs to be noted that a number of Conservative proposals with penal policy implications do not have new costs listed in their platform, including:

- "Reintroduce Legislation to Combat Terrorism";

- "Combat Human Smuggling";

- "Re-introduction of Law-and-Order Legislation"; and

- "End the Ineffective Long-Gun Registry".

While it is obvious that gutting a program such as the long-gun registry should theoretically not result in additional expenditures that would be immediately visible, the reintroduction of significant pieces of legislation, most notably the package of 'law and order' bills that died on the Order of Paper with the triggering of this election (read 26 March post) - a package of measures that will likely result in an influx of new prisoners serving longer sentences with fewer chances of release - without a price tag is suspect.

Although it may be possible that the costs of these proposals are already factored into the fiscal framework of the federal government, two questions need to be raised:

1) Can the Conservatives point to evidence that shows that the costs of these initiatives are already included in the fiscal framework of the Government of Canada?

2) Given that the independent Parliamentary Budget Officer concluded in his March 2011 report (read here) that the Conservatives did not comply with Brison's Question of Privilege that requested, among other things, a full accounting of the costs of their punishment agenda to the federal treasury, are the Conservatives now willing to share that information with Canadians? And if not, why should Canadians place their trust in a government that doesn't reciprocate in turn and trust them to digest this information and support this component of their legislative agenda?

The Conservatives should also be questioned about the costs of their punishment agenda not included in their election platform. For instance, the costs of CSC's Long-Term Accommodation Strategy that was to be submitted last month according to Public Safety Minister Vic Toews (read 17 March post) were nowhere to be found.

Where applicable, Canadians should also ask what the costs of these measures will be to the provinces and territories because it appears that Harper's commitment that "his government would have to work with the provinces to pay for more prison spaces" (read 23 September 2008 article by Whittington), a promise he made a few years ago, is now a distant memory with the Conservatives now arguing that their provincial-territorial counterparts are in support of all their measures. The latter claim also needs to be probed further.

If an election triggered over the governments contempt for Parliament, where the provisions of the costs of their flagship initiatives is not enough to convince the Conservatives to be more transparent with Canadians, one has to wonder what it would take for this veil of secrecy to be lifted. Perhaps 33 million Canadians screaming "show me the money" would be more effective. Then again, perhaps not.

A History of 'Sound' Fiscal Management

Budgeting in this area has not been a priority for the non-fiscal Conservatives as their

2006 punishment platform (see pages 21-27) included few details about the costs of their 'just us' measures. In fact, I could only find the following expenditures in that document: $100 million for hiring police, victim assistance, youth 'crime' prevention programs (p. 23); $50 million for your youth at risk (p. 24); and another $10 million annually for victim assistance (p. 25).

With a number of legislative proposals in the 2006 platform that brought them to power, it appears as though the Conservatives have long held the view that they can pass major bills without paying major bills.

Their 2008 punishment platform (see pages 35-40) included even fewer cost projections for their 'just us' approach: a $10 million annual increase for the Youth Gang Prevention Fund until 2013 (p. 36) and an additional $30 million in "Support for Stronger Justice" from 2008 to 2013 (p. 41).

With an avalanche of non-costed sentencing measures proposed in the 2006 platform and another 8 sentencing measures proposed in the 2008 platform costed at $30 million, that any news outlet would give Harper and company any benefit of the doubt on fiscal management in this area of public policy is alarming.

For instance, an editorial published last night on the Globe and Mail's website (read here) made the following pronouncement:

"And when it comes to crime, the Conservatives jettison fiscal prudence in order to assert moral values. New planks include an omnibus crime bill within 100 days; mandatory drug testing for all prisoners; and mandatory jail time for repeat cigarette smugglers. To their credit, the Conservatives account for the cost of new proposals. They failed, however, to acknowledge the far greater costs of their original proposals, now expected to reach an extra $1-billion a year – a failure that led to a parliamentary finding of contempt, which led to this election".

I'm not quite sure what the Conservatives should be given credit for. Apparently, providing any number for the cost of bad public policy will do. And I suppose if the Conservatives insinuated in their previous election platforms that their 'law and order' measures would cost next to nothing in the grand scheme of things or nothing at all and the budget of the Correctional Service of Canada has almost doubled since the Conservatives entered office in 2006 (read 1 March post), we should just accept the projections offered in their 2011 platform where they exist (e.g. "drug-free prisons", p. 65) and accept at face value measures that do not have costs attached to them in the current platform without asking for proof that they're already included in the fiscal framework (e.g. "re-introduction of law-and-order legislation", p. 65).

When commentary like this is published by a reputable news organization, presumably for the sake of 'balance' and 'objectivity', it's not surprising that the penal policy discussion in Canada has become more about which meaningless taglines stick ('soft on crime', 'dumb on crime', 'hug-a-thug-coalition') than matters of substance, such as how to prevent the complex conflicts and harms in our communities that we call 'crime', and address the needs of the victimized and criminalized, which are often pushed to the margins.

While articles such as the piece written by Ian Brown (read here) provide evidence that some are interested in fostering serious discussions, the dominance of divisionary rhetoric circulating in the public sphere poisons any sensible debate that is to be had (read 24 March editorial by Goldstein).

Then again, I'm just a criminologist - one of those wizards Stephen Harper warns Canadians about who say "pay no attention to that man behind the curtain" (read 12 February 2008 post). As one of those bothersome academics who asks questions and points to some inconvenient facts I'm also supposedly 'soft on crime' (read 23 September 2008 article by Whittington), a real live Pillsbury Doughboy.

Raising arguments and questions, such as those I've asked above, also makes me one of those so-called out-of-touch criminologists "who work in ivory towers", who apparently share the same standpoint in a discipline where "debating values, foundational principles and the greater public good" does not occur (read the March 2011 commentary by Lee, p. 1), who are said to not engage various stakeholders by restricting "debate to their own community" (p. 2), and "who are affluent, privileged people" (p. 17) in need of "outreach programs to inform" us of the realities on the ground (p. 18).

I suppose if you say it enough times it must be true (read 8 April article by Gardner).

Just ignore the body of criminological literature that specializes in the subject matter or the contradictory evidence and arguments that you are aware of (read 3 March SECU transcript), and the phantom menaces about criminologists become real.

Indeed, it is the academics and not the Conservatives - whose record on ballooning prison expenditures and secrecy regarding the full costs of a punishment agenda that likely won't enhance safety in our communities in the long-term - Canadians should really be worried about.

A Green Platform Indeed: Questions for Elizabeth May and Company

2011-04-08T06:46:00.019-04:00

* Updated: 10 April 2011

** On 8 April 2011, I asked a number of questions that I had following my reading of the 2011 Green Party of Canada Platform. However, some of the questions I had are answered in Vision Green which includes a more comprehensive set of priorities for the next decade. Where the issues I raised are addressed in this larger document I have included relevant excerpts in this update (in italics).

---

Yesterday, the Green Party of Canada released their 2011 platform (read here) and certainly proved that they're not a one-issue party with policies on variety of different issues. While leader Elizabeth May admitted that her party would not form the next federal government, her assertion that their proposals will push the envelop on a number of public policy issues holds true. This is certainly the case when examining the penal policy components of their plan for Canada. While the Green platform does lack detail on a number of important issues facing Canadians, they do introduce interesting ideas for consideration.

Legalization and Taxation of Marijuana

A first issue in the area of penal policy that is likely to catch the attention of voters is a budget line that lists revenue for legalizing and taxing marijuana (see p. 10). There are many reasons such a measure might be attractive to Canadians including:

1) There would be regulatory oversight over the production of marijuana, making it safer to consume as individuals would know exactly what they're using and their impacts (visit Amsterdam and you'll know what I'm taking about);

2) Marijuana would be taxed and steer legitimized revenues towards producers, merchants and government coffers instead of gangs and cartels who currently have a monopoly over the market and engage in violence to control its underground trafficking;

3) Canada would generate additional revenue by becoming a tourist destination for pot enthusiasts;

4) Canadians would save funds currently spent on a failed prohibitionist approach through reduced enforcement expenditures for policing, the judiciary, prisons, parole and the like;

5) Many Canadians would no longer be afflicted with the stigma of criminalization that is detrimental to individuals in a number of ways, including limiting their job prospects, for simple possession in a context where the majority of the population has consumed marijuana at some point in their lives; and

6) Individuals who use marijuana for pain relief instead of opioids, as well as other highly addictive and harmful pain killers, would enjoy greater access to the substance and a greater quality of life in contrast to having to constantly wait for pain relief due to our overburdened health care system that sees long lines in hospitals, a shortage of doctors and nurses, and significant turnaround times to obtain a medical marijuana license under the current regime.

While there would be many benefits to legalizing and taxing marijuana, including those listed above, the spectre of such a policy change will, as it has in the past, generate some opposition. I'll leave it for others to engage in raising hysteria in the model of Reefer Madness (watch here). At the same time, there are a number of practical questions associated with the implementation of marijuana legalization and taxation that need answers from the Green Party leader including:

1) With the United States next door and already concerned with the security of our common border, how would the Government of Canada assure our southern neighbours who will (rightly or wrongly) be concerned with the open distribution of a substance that is currently illegal in states across their country? How will you reassure them that there will not be a spillover affect into their backyards (not that prohibition works all that well to stop this now)? Put differently, would such a policy lead to a thickening of our shared border and how would that impact the Canadian economy?

Issue not addressed.

2) What kind of regulations and taxes would be imposed on a legitimized marijuana industry?

From page 73 of Vision Green:

- "Legalize marijuana by removing marijuana from the drug schedule".

- "Create a regulatory framework for the safe production of marijuana by small, independent growers".

- "Develop a taxation rate for marijuana similar to that of tobacco".

3) What type of bureaucracy would be created to support the regulation and taxation of marijuana?

From page 73 of Vision Green:

- "Establish the sale of marijuana to adults for medicinal or personal use through licensed distribution outlets".

- "Educate the public about the health threats of marijuana, tobacco and other drug use" (see also page 69 - "Increase funding to tobacco awareness programs and marijuana-use prevention programs and set a goal for a smoke-free Canada").

4) What kinds of rules would be in place to limit the ability of youth to purchase and use marijuana (not that the system we have is all that difficult to circumvent in this regard)?

Issue not addressed.

5) How would the Government of Canada set a price range for the sale and taxation of marijuana that would ensure that a robust black market (not dissimilar to the one that currently exists now) where cheaper product that many Canadians would be inclined to buy doesn't emerge?

Issue not addressed.

6) How would the funds currently allocated to the enforcement of marijuana towards 'cops, courts and corrections' be reinvested into Canadian communities?

Issue not addressed.

It should be noted that none of these considerations are death nails to the proposal tabled by the Green Party as many good answers to these questions exist. However, these questions do need to be debated in a serious way if reasonable marijuana policy advocated by the likes of Canadian Students for Sensible Drug Policy and Norml Canada is to be enacted instead of deepening the problems associated with prohibition through measures such as S-10: An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substance Act that recently died on the Order of Paper when the Harper government fell.

Sections of Vision Green relevant to the governance of drugs

- "Reduce drug addictions" (p. 70)

- "Ending the war on drugs" (p. 73)

Investments to Prosecute 'White Collar Crime'

A second issue in the area of penal policy included in the Green Party's platform is additional funds to "prosecute white collar crime" (see p. 11). While this type of enforcement policy - like the recently passed Standing up for Victims of White Collar Crime Act that, among other things, set mandatory minimum sentences for frauds exceeding $1 million - is likely to generate support from many Canadians, I would make the case that such measures distract our attention from one troubling fact: that the lax financial regulations that allow individuals to steal vast quantities of funds from others, and ruining their lives in the process, are largely left in tact.

Given the kind of money that is involved, one has to ask whether additional investments in prosecution or longer sentences for this scale of fraud will have a significant deterrent effect on those who stand to gain so much by engaging in such acts. Instead of focussing much of our attention on reactionary justice, I think our resources would be much better spent on putting in place mechanisms to prevent this kind of victimization because once it occurs no prison sentence handed-down to those who have harmed others or partial restitution will undo the damage caused by such an act.

Put simply, if we individualize, we fail to deal with the systemic issues that enable victimization to occur in the first place. Parties who support these kinds of 'tough on crime' measures need to be asked whether their proposals are simply band-aid solutions that will eventually peal and leave gapping wounds, while allowing the meta-narrative of greed to continue uninterrupted.

From pages 86-87 of Vision Green:

- "Adopt the recommendations of the Advisory Report from the National Roundtables on
Corporate Social Responsibility. This framework sets out clear standards and reporting obligations for Canadian corporations. It would establish an ombudsman office with the power to investigate and evaluate complaints from affected communities and determine levels of compliance with the established standards.
- Work with the provinces to establish a national Canadian Securities Commission and bring in a federal Securities Act to protect investors from unfair, improper, or fraudulent practices, and foster fair and efficient capital markets as well as confidence in those markets.
- Introduce legislation to hold Canadian corporations that are working overseas to the same environmental and human rights standards as they are in Canada.
- Prevent legal intimidation of ordinary people by limiting the rights of corporations to sue groups and individuals only for actual loss.
- Develop laws similar to the U.S.’s Alien Tort Claims Act that will allow those who are not Canadian to sue Canadian corporations for gross violations of basic human, environmental or labour rights in their own countries.
- Reduce the disclosure requirements for prosecuting corporations. In a complicated stock market fraud or investment scam, disclosure can amount to hundreds of thousands of documents that have to be gathered, sorted, organized, and copied so they can be given over to the defendant and the defendant's lawyers as soon as charges are laid in a case.
- Oppose the takeover of Canada’s stock exchanges such as the Toronto Stock Exchange, by corporate entities based outside of Canada".

Other Relevant Sections of Vision Green not Included in the 2011 Platform

- "True justice; Real security" (pp. 81-83)

- "Cracking down on organized and white collar crime" (pp. 84-85)

- "Anti-terrorism and border security" (pp. 85-86)

- "Corporate accountability" (pp. 86-87)

- "Access to justice" (pp. 87-88)

- "Gun control and ownership rights" (p. 88)

Questions About the Conservative and Liberal Punishment Agendas

2011-04-06T09:38:00.014-04:00

"No one disagrees that criminals must be punished".

- 2011 Liberal Party Platform, p. 54

In a political climate where 'soft on crime' and 'dumb on crime' have become common parlance in policy discussions on how to address the complex conflicts and harms in our communities that we call 'crime', there is an absence of leadership, honesty and courage amongst the 'political class' to address the serious issues that have been appropriated by the penal system and its corollaries (read 6 March post).

On one hand we have the Conservatives, who stir up fear in a manner that would have us believe we live in Gotham City, and only the policies of Batman (Rob Nicholson) and Robin (Vic Toews) can protect us and meet the needs of victims, which our caped crusaders seem to principally measure by the length of prison sentences given to those who harm others.

It is an approach that proposes a prison for almost every challenge faced by governments across the country (e.g. the legacy of colonization, drug addiction, mental illness, poverty, political dissent, refugee claims, etc...).

On the other hand we have the Liberals, who have long shouted the line "prisons and planes" versus "the real priorities of Canadians" (read 4 September 2010 post). With the costs of the Conservative punishment agenda becoming visible, the Liberals have found the courage - albeit fleeting at the best of times with their constant reassurances to the electorate that they too are 'tough on crime' - to rightfully point out the problems of addressing a myriad of issues through incarceration.

However, in the next breath they have said a Liberal government would not revisit the punishment bills passed in the last five years (read 4 April article by Jessica Murphy) that, even by triggering other levers in the system (read 30 May 2010 post), would threaten the relative stability in Canada's rate of imprisonment over the past half-century (Doob and Webster, 2006).

How can one commit to not placing an emphasis on prison construction, if one is not committed to revisiting some of the laws that granted will likely not enhance the levels of safety in our communities in the long-term, but will stack bodies in our penal institutions like sheets of plywood? This perplexing position has raised some debate in the Twitterverse amongst commentators and journalists such as Andrew Coyne, Dan Gardner and Rob Tripp, as well as others in the media (read today's editorial by the National Post).

With the NDP and Green Party platforms still to come, one is left to wonder if anyone will step up to the table and think any of their taglines through by providing policy positions that are carried-out to their logical (or illogical) conclusions. For now, I'll focus my attention on the Conservatives and Liberals, and the questions I feel need to be asked to the leaders and members of both parties in the weeks ahead. They are questions that require full answers and not the kind of obfuscation that Canadians have become accustomed to that led to the downfall of the previous government (read March 26 post).

Questions for the Conservatives

1) If you form government, will you re-table the punishment bills that were recently killed when the federal election was called?

2) If yes:

- What are the capital and operational costs of the proposed penal policies to the federal government who is responsible for incarcerating individuals serving sentences of two-years-plus-a-day?
- What are the capital and operational costs of the proposed penal policies to the provinces and territories who are responsible for incarcerating individuals serving sentences of two-years-minus-a-day and those awaiting trial or sentencing in remand?
- What evidence exists to suggest that the proposed penal policies will enhance safety in our communities in the short- and long-term?
- What evidence exists to suggest that the proposed penal policies will meet the complex needs of the victimized and criminalized?
- What less costly and more effective prevention and community-based alternatives will not be pursued should your proposed penal policies divert resources towards the construction of penal infrastructure and the warehousing of additional prisoners?

3) You have announced CSC's short-term accommodation strategy for absorbing the influx of new prisoners serving longer sentences that involves the construction of new units on the grounds of aging penitentiaries that others, including the 2007 CSC Review Panel that you commissioned, have said need to be replaced (read 14 February post), but what are the costs associated with CSC's long-term accommodation strategy that was to be tabled for consideration last month (read 17 March post)?

Questions for the Liberals

1) You propose a number of measures to address some of the challenges individuals face that may contribute to their involvement in 'crime' such as the availability of affordable housing, deficits in education and poverty, but you do not propose any specific measures to address drug addiction, mental illness and the overrepresentation of aboriginals in our prisons in your platform. What would a Liberal government propose to address these gaps in your platform and how much would those initiatives cost?

2) You critique the Conservatives actual and projected prison construction spending, yet provide no specifics on how you would clawback such expenditures or reduce the influx of new prisoners. This raises a number of questions:

- Can we assume that a Liberal government would continue to pursue CSC's short-term accommodation strategy initiated by the Conservatives?

- Can we assume that a Liberal government would not pursue CSC's long-term accommodation strategy that was to be submitted to the Conservatives last month?

- If one or both of these strategies were abandoned, what would a Liberal government do to curb the prison growth associated with the Conservative punishment bills that were passed in the last five years that is likely to occur?

- How would a Liberal government collaborate with the provinces and territories, who have expressed concerns over the costs of implementing federal punishment bills?

- What evidence exists that your policies will prevent victimization, and meet the complex needs of the victimized and criminalized?

- Will a Liberal government consider less costly and more effective prevention and community-based alternatives to prevent victimization, and meet the complex needs of the victimized and criminalized?

Stay Tuned

Given the costs and potential implications for affected individuals and communities, hopefully these questions and others will be raised in this unfolding election campaign. Canada is at a crossroads (read February 23 post) and those who want to represent us in Parliament need to provide voters with an honest picture of the course they intend to chart if elected.

If members of the media don't raise these questions, pick-up the phone and call your candidates. It is, after all, our communities that these policies will be affecting and our money that they will be spending to support their punishment agendas.

Considering Abolition - Notes for Rittenhouse

2011-04-01T09:05:00.004-04:00

By Mike Larsen

* This article was originally published on Just Blog, a Rittenhouse website.

What is to be Abolished?

There is a recurring discussion in the abolitionist literature regarding the prefix that should accompany ‘abolition’. A recent addition to this ongoing dialogue, published in Contemporary Justice Review, is Piché and Larsen’s (2010) article ‘The Moving Targets of Abolitionism: ICOPA, Past, Present and Future’. To briefly summarize, I would say that ‘abolition’ on its own is a bit too vague – there are many systems and institutions that have been the targets of abolitionist movements, and while there are definitely links between these institutions (slavery, colonialism, torture, and the prison, for example), it seems important to specify an objective. The question that Justin and I ask is “What is to be abolished?”. We outline three approaches to this question – three orientations or objectives for the movement. These three approaches roughly reflect the evolution of debates at the International Conference on Penal Abolition (ICOPA) over the years.

The first was prison abolition. This has the advantage of being a straightforward objective, insofar as it targets a specific institutional setting. Prison abolition is (or was) closely related to the decarceration and community justice movements. Its weakness is its scope, in that it does not address the laws, ideas, and practices of ‘the system’ more generally. There is a consensus that efforts to abolish prisons must be located in a broader project.

This recognition led to the adoption of penal abolition as a new objective. This remains the defined goal of ICOPA. Penal abolitionism focuses on the prison as an institutional setting as well as the constellation of ideas and practices that are informed by systematized punitiveness. Penal abolitionist efforts have targeted some so-called community justice alternatives as being sites of net-widening – spaces that, despite their original objectives, have become co-opted and incorporated into the retributive criminal justice system. A key resource for this discussion is Stan Cohen’s (1985) text Visions of Social Control, which chronicles the various ways in which destructuring efforts became ‘Trojan horses’ for an array of community-based punishments that actually led to the expansion and intensification of the ‘Master Patterns’ of social control.

Thomas Mathiesen’s (1974;1990) treatises on the politics of abolition have also been influential – particularly his theory of The Unfinished, which describes abolitionism as an ever-evolving process as opposed to a fixed end point. Mathiesen catalogues the various ways in which abolitionist efforts can and have been co-opted by ‘the system’. The ideal abolitionist initiative, according to the theory of the unfinished, is a ‘competing contradiction’ – something that is neither a simple external critique of the system nor an effort to work with or change the system from within. Instead, the goal is to offer an alternative that occupies the space ‘between reform and revolution’, and is resilient to co-optation by the system. Mathiesen describes various routes to co-optation, one of which is the adoption of system language, which allows an organization to be defined according to system logics and rendered either incorporated or irrelevant. I point this out because penal abolitionist debates often morph into discussions about reform vs. revolution. As an ideal-type, the ‘reformists’ tend to represent organizations that pursue community justice and service delivery projects that work with, supplement, and / or fill gaps in the existing system. These groups risk becoming examples of the net-widening that Cohen warned about, not least because their funding structures and access to populations (or ‘clients’) tend to become tied to formal structures and state initiatives. On the other hand, they can and do contribute to the amelioration of the ‘pains of imprisonment’. The ‘radicals’, on the other hand, tend to focus on advocacy and ‘short-term negative reforms’ geared towards critiquing the existing system and reducing its scope. While they can lay claim to a purist outlook, they are open to being ‘defined out’ by system proponents, and have a hard time influencing policy debates.

Penal abolitionists have increasingly and effectively worked to situate abolitionism within broader projects to address sources of structural injustices – racism, patriarchy, poverty, predatory capitalism, etc. Theorists such as Angela Davis and Viviane Saleh-Hanna have worked to develop comprehensive anti-racist, anti-colonial, and pro-democracy approaches to abolition.

Finally, there is carceral abolition. This is an idea that comes from Piché and Larsen (2010). It seeks not to replace, but to supplement penal abolitionism – to update it in order to reflect emerging trends in social control. Specifically, we seek to broaden the abolitionist movement to recognize the proliferation of spaces of control and incarceration that are peripheral to the traditional criminal justice system, namely immigration and migrant detention, non-status ‘camps’, and other sites of administrative detention. We also draw attention to the shift towards exclusionary and ‘warehousing’ forms of incarceration, as opposed to traditional punitive-correctionalist modalities. Our goal is twofold – to ensure that the abolitionist movement accurately reflects the terrain of the contemporary carceral and to foster solidarity between traditional abolitionist groups and fellow travelers in fields such as migrant rights and habeas corpus advocacy.

As we argue:

“We need to increasingly be thinking and talking about carceral abolition. We use carceral to mean both the diffusion of mechanisms of surveillance and control encompassed by Foucault’s (1977) exploration of disciplinary power and practices of confinement more generally. Whereas the first two ICOPAs focused on the prison, and subsequent meetings expanded their focus to encompass broader punitive trends, future ICOPAs need to address the use of confinement, and the systematic deprivation of liberty in spaces outside and adjacent to the penal system, as traditionally conceived. This was one of the central themes of the Universal Carceral Colloquium held at ICOPA XII” (398).

[…]

“In proposing a conceptual shift towards carceral abolition, we highlight the proliferation of spaces and practices of confinement that are not components of the traditional penal system. However, our intention is not to suggest that these trends – preventative detention, the politics of insecurity and the proliferation of camps – are in any way representative of a wholesale rupture or departure from the forms of penality that abolitionists have traditionally fought against. Continuities and linkages abound, and the disproportionate infliction of imprisonment as well as other forms of control according to distinctions of gender, race, ethnicity or group membership is perhaps the key bridge linking the critique of the juridico-political spaces of the prison and the camp” (404).

Carceral abolitionism has weaknesses, too. For one, it is relatively new. I am not aware of any organizations that have a defined carceral abolitionist mandate. It is not a concept in common currency, and it would require some unpacking. Beyond this, we are making a ‘broadening move’ with this concept, seeking to build coalitions, involve allies, and to enlarge the scope of the movement. For organizations that seek to retain a focus on penal abolitionism that is closely tied to the traditional criminal justice system, this could mean a dilution of focus. On the other hand, I would suggest that our framework offers a comprehensive and contemporary response to the question “What is to be abolished?’.

Abolitionism or Carceral Minimalism? The Problem of the Dangerous Few

Abolitionism often operates as a sensitizing theory, exposing the uninitiated to radically alternative approaches to questions of justice and conflict resolution. People encountering abolitionism for the first time sometimes experience it as a naïve, utopian, and simplistic idea, and reject it as being unrealistic. Despite the fact that the existing system fails in every way to achieve its own stated objectives (public safety, justice, rehabilitation, etc.), the ‘burden of proof’ often rests with abolitionists to justify our arguments in relation to a taken-for-granted punitive norm. This also means that ‘Introduction to Abolition’ conversations often follow a predictable script, and one of the central components of this script is the “what about the dangerous few?” question. Potential allies hear ‘abolition’ and immediately ask if we propose ‘turning loose’ mass murderers, repeat sexual offenders, serial killers, and various ‘celebrity monsters’. This can be a paralyzing conversation.

The danger, as I see it, is that this conversation inevitably misses the forest for the trees. As abolitionists, we are talking about alternative approaches to justice, decarceration, decriminalization, the halting of penal expansionism, and an array of structural reforms. The ‘dangerous few’ conversation pins us down to responding to a fear of monsters that relates to an incredibly small percentage of ‘offenders’. It is a red herring. Despite this, it is part of the aforementioned script, and it requires a sophisticated response.

One way to approach the question (the carceral minimalist position) is to concede that there are indeed a ‘dangerous few’ – individuals who, for various reasons, present a socially-intolerable risk to others. From an abolitionist perspective, it follows that some kind of non-punitive, non-segregation, custodial option should be available in these cases, for last-resort reasons of community protection. I can support this. The questions that immediately follow are “who are the dangerous few?” and “how can we tell?”. Criminologists will disagree on the answers to these questions, and getting immersed in them can steer us away from abolitionism into risk management discourses.

Generally, I have found it useful to insist that the question of the dangerous few be placed in context. When I teach abolitionism to students, I ask first for a group consensus on about what percentage of the overall prison population constitutes the ‘dangerous few’. The research literature suggests a 2% - 7% statistic, perhaps up to 20% if we adopt and extremely sensitive understanding of risk. My students usually arrive at a number around 5%, which reflects a background of repeat, violent, interpersonal violence. I usually propose that we double this number, “just to be on the safe side” (I do this for rhetorical purposes only). Assuming that 10% of the prison population are truly the “dangerous few”, this means that 90% of the population are not.

It is this 90%, and the politics and practices that have led to their mass confinement, that are the primary targets of the abolitionist movement. We draw attention to the massive increase in remand custody and custody related to bail breach. We draw attention to the disproportionate over-incarceration of racial and ethnic minorities, and particularly of indigenous peoples. We draw attention to the network of immigration detention camps on the margins of so-called liberal democracies. We draw attention to the mass incarceration that continues to flow directly from prohibitionist approaches to drug use and abuse. We draw attention to the use of incarceration as a means of dealing with mental health needs. We draw attention to the retributive politics of exclusion that are resulting in more people serving longer sentences in an expanding carceral archipelago.

From my perspective, abolitionist conversations – and efforts – are more effective when they can maintain a focus on this ‘unnecessarily confined majority’, rather than the ‘dangerous few’. Experience suggests that steering conversations in this direction requires a familiarity with trends in ‘offending’, sentencing, and recidivism. Jursistat statistics, despite their limitations, are useful in this regard, as are figures on the cost of incarceration, the lasting effects of imprisonment (on employment, for example), and carceral demographics.

Of course, the strategy of shifting the ‘dangerous few’ question towards a discussion of the ‘unnecessarily confined majority’ risks abandoning the hardest-to-serve minority of prisoners as casualties of the rhetorical battles of abolitionism. A truly comprehensive and robust abolitionist movement needs to deal seriously with the ‘dangerous few’. This means two things. First, it means taking a serious and informed position on what is to be done with that small population of people who are deemed to be the ‘dangerous few’. Second, and just as important, it means acknowledging the roles that criminal justice institutions, structural inequalities, marginalization and victimization play in the production of dangerousness.

Ontario Prison Savings? Duncan's Numbers Don't Add Up

2011-03-31T11:34:00.007-04:00

According to a story that appeared in the Toronto Star on Tuesday – “Province to build new jails in Toronto and Windsor” (read article by Richard Brennan) – the Ontario Finance Minister Dwight Duncan, who just released his budget, is claiming that they will save money by replacing aging penal institutions with newer ones.

The story states that the price tag for building the Toronto South Detention Centre is $594 million. However, if you look at the 28 October 2009 press release from Infrastructure Ontario, the contract for building, financing and maintaining the facility is $1.1 billion over 30 years. This means that Ontarians who are just entering the workforce like me will be paying for this prison mortgage until the day we retire (should that day ever come).

Another point worth raising is the claim that these new detention centres will be cheaper than the facilities slated for replacement. If the new facilities we’re ‘replacing’ were of a similar size an operational cost savings may be had. However, in Ontario and right across the country, we’re building newer and bigger provincial-territorial prisons (read 16 February 2011).

According to a Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services webpage, the 1,650-bed Toronto South Detention Centre is replacing the 550-bed Toronto Jail. That is an addition of 1,100 new beds to the overall capacity of the system.

Should these beds come online and are each filled (which should be no problem with new federal sentencing legislation and the persistence of court backlogs despite the passage of the Truth in Sentencing Act in 2009) – at a cost of $179.97 a day or $65,689 a year per prisoner, Ontario taxpayers will be on the hook for an additional $72,257,900 per year for this facility.

If savings are to be achieved, the Ontario Government needs to provide us with their figures so that their assertions can be verified independently because based on the numbers available to constituents the math simply doesn’t add up.

According to another Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services webpage, the new 315-bed South West Detention Centre is slated to replace the aging 140-bed Windsor Jail. That is a capacity increase of 175 beds.

We don’t yet know the cost of building, financing and maintaining this facility, as it will be announced shortly, but based on the available figures above it will cost Ontario an additional $11,496,575 to operate these 175 new beds. Where are the savings?

As part of its “prison modernization”, the page 75 of the 2011 Ontario Budget notes that the “government will close underutilized prisons in Owen Sound, Walkerton and Sarnia, and partially close Toronto West Detention Centre. It is anticipated that this will reduce expenditures on the transferred inmates from the oldest facilities by more than 50 per cent, while achieving over $8 million in annual savings”. And in between 2011-2012 to 2013-2014 these savings are to total $16 million (see page 64).

How they arrive at these figures? No one knows. The Ontario Government needs to substantiate its case and not simply make assertions without evidence.

I’d also note that, historically, calls for new prisons to replace aging penal infrastructure are common. However, it’s often the case that prisons slated for replacement are never closed. Take for example Kingston Penitentiary. Built in 1835, this facility has been slated for closure a number of times. However, not even a riot that damaged much of the facility in 1971 (a riot that was quelled by our Armed Forces) led to its closure because of the number of new prisoners that were entering our prisons at that time.

With a federal punishment agenda, led by the Conservatives but often supported by either the Liberals, NDP or the Bloc, and sometimes by all of them (read 23 February post), there is a significant chance that this history will be repeated.

As a researcher, I’m worried that this focus on new prison construction is taking up funds that could be spent preventing victimization from happening in the first place, and on services to meet the complex needs of the victimized and criminalized (read 6 April 2010 post).

As a taxpayer, I’m perplexed that governments across this country are engaged in an ill-advised and expensive carceral binge that based on evidence (not a popular thing these days) will likely not enhance safety in our communities in the long-term, will cause tremendous damage to the individuals that will now be incarcerated or will be incarcerated for longer periods of time, and will not meet the complex needs of victims which are being ignored when governments think the only way to meet their wishes is through longer sentences for those who have harmed them.

We’re in desperate need of leadership in this area and unfortunately politicians across the board are not stepping up to the plate, perhaps because they are afraid of being labeled ‘soft on crime’ – a meaningless and misleading label if I’ve ever heard one.

As the Harper Government Falls on Questions of Transparency, Much of the Projected Costs of the Punishment Agenda Remain Hidden

2011-03-26T11:10:00.023-04:00

After months of wrangling over the Harper government's unwillingness to provide a full costing of major expenditures such as the price tag of their punishment agenda, fighter jets and corporate tax cuts (read 21 March post) to parliamentarians who are responsible to their constituents for knowing the implications of the legislation under consideration that will affect the lives of Canadians (read 16 March post), the opposition parties voted in support of the following non-confidence motion yesterday:

"That the House agrees with the finding of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs that the government is in contempt of Parliament, which is unprecedented in Canadian parliamentary history, and consequently, the House has lost confidence in the government".

With this vote, a contemptuous and defeated Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who effectively characterized the events as trivial and unimportant to Canadians (read article by John Ivison), visited the Governor General today to dissolve Parliament. While there seems to be much debate amongst the commentariat as to whether or not this edition of the Conservatives are more contemptuous than previous Liberal governments (read this editorial by Rex Murphy for an example), the question as to why the Harper administration didn't provide Canadians with a full costing of their punishment bills and other grandiose expenditures is one that has arguably been pushed to the margins by many reporters.

The attention of the media seems to be directed towards chasing Harper's 'coalition' tagline, to which I only have one comment: If the Liberals wanted to form a coalition with the Bloc Québecois and NDP, why bother with this election campaign ? Couldn't they have formed a coalition last week and saved themselves the headache of criss-crossing the country for votes (read article by Diana Swain)?

Now that I'm distracted, discussing what would be a legitimate governing arrangement no matter who was leading a coalition or who was part of it, what needs to be asked of Harper is why he would not provide a full account of some of his major policy planks.

Is it because current estimates are being low-balled as some, including the Parliamentary Budget Officer, have suggested (read 22 June 2010 post)?

Or is it because the Federal-Provincial-Territorial Cumulative Impact Working Group that has been attempting to project the costs of these measures may still not have tools to predict, to the degree that is possible, how much Canadian taxpayers will be on the hook for due to our current carceral binge (read 7 February post)?

These questions, for which Canadians deserve a response, remain unanswered and neutralized by fears of a so-called reckless coalition.

As many punishment bills, some of which have been on the order of paper for years under other names, have now entered political purgatory (see below), one can expect many of them to resurface in the form of Conservative campaign promises (see 2006 and 2008 platforms). If the last two election campaigns are any indication, all federal political parties including the Greens (2006 / 2008), Liberals (2006 / 2008) and NDP (2006 / 2008) will also advance their own 'tough on crime' credentials (for contrast, see Bloc Québecois - 2006 / 2008).

With many penal policy announcements to come, here are the questions that I hope will be asked and answered in the weeks ahead:

- What is the price tag of the Correctional Service of Canada's long-term accommodation strategy (read 17 March post)?

- What are the capital and operational costs of the proposed penal policies to the federal government who is responsible for incarcerating individuals serving sentences of two-years-plus-a-day?

- What are the capital and operational costs of the proposed penal policies to the provinces and territories who are responsible for incarcerating individuals serving sentences of two-years-plus-a-day?

- What evidence exists to suggest that the proposed penal policies will enhance safety in our communities in the short- and long-term?

- What evidence exists to suggest that the proposed penal policies will meet the complex needs of the victimized and criminalized?

- What less costly and more effective prevention and community-based alternatives will not be pursued should proposed penal policies divert resources towards the construction of penal infrastructure and the warehousing of additional prisoners?

As details emerge from the 2011 federal punishment platforms of aspiring public office holders, visit Tracking the Politics of 'Crime' and Punishment for commentary and analysis.

Conservative Punishment and Penal System (a.k.a. Criminal Justice System) Administration Bills Tabled in the 3rd Session of the 40th Parliament that Died on the Order of Paper

House of Commons (summary)

C-4: An Act to amend the Youth Criminal Justice Act and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts (Sébastien's Law / Protecting the Public from Violent Young Offenders)

* Last stage passed: 2nd Reading, House of Commons / Referred to Committee - May 3, 2010

C-5: An Act to amend the International Transfer of Offenders Act

* Last stage passed: 2nd Reading, House of Commons / Committee Report Tabled - February 7, 2011

C-16: An Act to amend the Criminal Code (Ending House Arrest for Property and Other Serious Crimes by Serious and Violent Offenders Act)

* Last stage passed: 2nd Reading, House of Commons / Referred to Committee - May 6, 2010

C-17: An Act to amend the Criminal Code (investigative hearing and the recognizance with conditions / Combatting Terrorism Act)

* Last stage passed: 2nd Reading, House of Commons / Report Tabled - March 2, 2011

C-23B: An Act to amend the Criminal Records Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts

* Last stage passed: 2nd Reading, House of Commons / Referred to Committee - June 14, 2010

C-38: An Act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts

* Last stage passed: 1st Reading, House of Commons - June 14, 2010

C-39: An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts

* Last stage passed: 2nd Reading, House of Commons / Referred to Committee - October 20, 2010

C-43: An Act to enact the RCMP Labour Relations Modernization Act and to amend the RCMP Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts (RCMP Modernization Act)

* Last stage passed: 1st Reading, House of Commons - June 17, 2010

C-49: An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Balance Refugee Reform Act and the Marine Transportation Security Act (Preventing Human Smugglers from Abusing Canada's Immigration System Act)

* Last stage passed: 1st Reading, House of Commons - October 21, 2010

C-50: An Act to amend the Criminal Code (Improving Access to Investigative Tools for Serious Crimes Act)

* Last stage passed: 1st Reading, House of Commons - October 29, 2010

C-51: An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Competition Act and the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act (Investigative Powers for the 21st Century Act)

* Last stage passed: 1st Reading, House of Commons - November 1, 2010

C-52: An Act Regulating Telecommunications Facilities to Support Investigations (Investigating and Preventing Criminal Electronic Communications Act)

* Last stage passed: 1st Reading, House of Commons - November 1, 2010

C-53: An Act to amend the Criminal Code (Fair and Efficient Trials Act)

* Last stage passed: 1st Reading, House of Commons - November 2, 2010

C-54: An Act to amend the Criminal Code (Protecting Children from Sexual Predators Act)

* Last stage passed: 2nd Reading, House of Commons / Referred to Committee - March 24, 2011

C-60: An Act to amend the Criminal Code (citizen's arrest and the defences of property and persons)

* Last stage passed: 2nd Reading, House of Commons / Referred to Committee - March 22, 2011

Senate (summary)

S-7: An Act to deter terrorism and to amend the State Immunity Act (Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act)

* Last stage passed: 1st Reading, House of Commons - February 8, 2011

S-10: An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts (Penalties for Organized Drug Crime Act)

* Last stage passed: 1st Reading, House of Commons - December 14, 2010

Absent Prisons and Missed Opportunities

2011-03-23T08:41:00.012-04:00

Yesterday, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty delivered Budget 2011. Touted as "the Next Phase of Canada's Economic Action Plan [that] will focus on supporting job creation, supporting families and communities, investing in innovation, education and training, and preserving Canada's fiscal advantage", the sales pitch by the minority Conservative Government of Canada is that there will be no major new expenditures in this year's edition of the federal budget. And if one were to read the document from cover-to-cover they would likely arrive at this conclusion.

From my vantage point, there was no major new expenditures in the federal budget, but that does not mean that the Government of Canada will not be incurring major expenditures in the years to come. What I found most striking about this document was the fact the funds for the new federal prison units that the Conservatives announced this past fiscal year - many of which are located on the grounds of aging and outmoded penitentiaries that the 2007 CSC Review Panel and newly-minted prison construction 'experts' have said need to be replaced - were not included in this year's budget (read 14 February post). Also missing from the budget was any mention of Correctional Service of Canada's (CSC) Long-Term Accommodation Strategy, which was to be submitted for consideration this month, as confirmed by Public Safety Minister Vic Toews in his December 2010 response to Order of Paper Question 471 (read 17 March post).

With a punishment agenda as one of their flagship initiatives and the recent finding of contempt from the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs for not providing a full accounting of the costs of their 'tough on crime' bills (read 21 March post), one has to wonder if the ruling non-fiscal Conservatives have learned anything about transparency since they've taken office, and particularly in the last few weeks.

One also has to wonder if the opposition parties have learned how to be effective at driving the point home on this issue. With the budget tabled, the opposition parties had the opportunity to point out that the full costs of the Conservatives punishment agenda, now acknowledged to be in the billions of dollars over the next five years (read 17 February article by David Akin), were not in the Finance Minister's Budget Plan, Budget In Brief or Budget Speech.

Instead, the Liberals and other opposition parties ran to the microphones to announce that they would not support the budget, with investments in new federal penal infrastructure - expenditures that were not even mentioned in these budget documents - being a primary justification to take down the sitting government. While some of these costs were outlined in the 2011-2012 Main Estimates (read 1 March post) and will likely be detailed in CSC's 2011-2012 Report on Plans and Priorities which is not yet available, those aspiring to govern missed an easy opportunity to point out another example of why Canadians cannot trust the numbers put (or not put) forward by the non-fiscal Conservatives.

If the inability of the opposition parties to capitalize on the moment yesterday was any indication of how their campaigns will be executed, those dissatisfied with the "Harper government" may need to hold their breath for a few more years before a leadership change occurs in the highest office of the nation.

Conservatives Found in Contempt by Parliamentary Committee

2011-03-21T19:27:00.014-04:00

Years of refusing to disclose the full costs of their punishment agenda to Canadians and their political representatives in Parliament are slowly catching up with the minority Government of Canada (read 7 February post; also read 16 March post), as the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs determined that the ruling Conservatives failed to provide relevant information ordered by MPs (read report here).

In tabling this report, the committee reaffirmed the primacy of Parliament and the need for its members to have access to relevant financial costs prior to voting on legislation, including punishment bills. Whether this finding will amount to more than an official rebuke in the House of Commons or an election as a result of a confidence motion remains to be seen, particularly in light of the fact that Budget 2011 - which could also trigger an election - is being tabled tomorrow afternoon.

Unfortunately, this exercise has failed to produce any substantial new information that wasn't already known a month ago (read 23 February post). The Conservatives continue to maintain that their punishment bills tabled this legislative session will cost $2.7 billion to the federal treasury over five years. However, these projections do not include the costs of their prison agenda to the provinces and territories or other related expenditures that were not explicitly outlined in Liberal Finance Critic Scott Brison's Question of Privilege (read 17 March post).

The committee's finding of contempt was also supported by comments made by the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Office who noted the following about the federal governments attempt to comply with the request by tabling a large binder of so-called new information minutes before a hearing last week (see March 2011 report by the PBO - page 2):

- "Additional information has indeed been provided to parliamentarians when compared to the GC's [Government of Canada] tabling of documents on February 17, 2011;

- Based on the GC's assessment, four of the proposed bills are not expected to have a fiscal impact owing to their procedural nature;

- The FINA committee request and the Question of Privilege contained multiple references to breakdowns of costs by capital, operating and maintenance and other costs. The information provided includes virtually no reference to capital expenditures (e.g. new cell construction, refurbishment, recapitalization, capital asset replacement);

- There remain significant gaps between the information requested by parliamentarians and the documentation that was provided by the GC which will limit the ability of parliamentarians to fulfill their fiduciary obligations".

In reaction to the conclusion reached today by their colleagues in the opposition, Conservative members of the committee issued a dissenting report where they argued that the Liberals, NDP and Bloc "have ignored the substance of the evidence provided by the Government and by the witnesses who appeared. The report tabled by the committee is simply a piece of partisan gamesmanship that diminishes the important work of Parliament" (read report - page 18).

Based on the rhetoric in Ottawa, one could conclude that Parliament in its current form is dysfunctional and Canadians will soon be heading to the polls. Of course, reconciliation is always possible if the price is right. Whether the Conservatives write the cheque and one of the opposition parties decides to cash it is another matter.

Related coverage:

- CBC News

- CBC's Power & Politics with Evan Solomon

- CTV News and Power Play

What are the Costs of CSC's Long-Term Accommodation Strategy?

2011-03-17T09:52:00.017-04:00

As Parliamentarians debate the costs of the non-fiscal Conservatives punishment bills (read 16 March post), one issue that has evaded scrutiny in these discussions are the costs of the Correctional Service of Canada's (CSC) long-term accommodation strategy.

"98. The Panel recommends that CSC pursue undertaking capital and operating investments in a new type of regional, penitentiary complex that responds to the cost-efficiency and operational-effectiveness deficits of its current physical infrastructure.

99. The Panel recommends that CSC develop a 'project development proposal' for consideration which takes into account the recommendations of Deloitte's October 4, 2007 Independent Review of the cost estimate for the construction and operation of a new corrections facility which was commissioned by the Panel.

100. The Panel recommends that in the interim, CSC institute clear criteria to minimize authorization of retrofit projects."

Nearly four years later, we now know that CSC is pursuing a dual-track accommodation strategy. In order to absorb the influx of new prisoners entering federal penitentiaries as a result of Conservative punishment bills, CSC is implementing a short-term accommodation strategy involving the construction of new units on the grounds of existing penitentiaries, many of which are aging and well past their life-cycle (read 14 February post).

According to a 6 December 2010 response from Public Safety Minister Vic Toews to an order of paper question tabled by Liberal Public Safety Critic Mark Holland (Q-471), we also know that CSC is also pursuing a "Long-Term Accommodation Strategy and Investment Plan" that will be tabled "for consideration in March 2011". This accommodation strategy will likely reflect the recommendations of the CSC Review Panel for regional complexes described by Don Head (2008), now the Commissioner of the agency.

With the costs of the Conservative punishment agenda being discussed again this morning and Budget 2011 looming, it is time to ask whether CSC has submitted their long-term accommodation plan and what are the expenditures related to that initiative.

Given that Reid & Associates has been lobbying the federal government on behalf of their client - American-based Management & Training Corporation - to obtain a contract on "CSC (Correctional Service Canada) Transformation - modernizing physical infrastructure" since May 2010, other questions ought to be raised.

According to the MTC's website, they are a "leader in the management and operation of private correctional facilities". They also are involved in private-public partnerships (P3s), arrangements where corporations provide services for the design, financing, building and/or maintenance of government-operated institutions. It is with this in mind, that the following questions require answers:

Does CSC's long-term accommodation strategy include privately-operated prisons or a P3 component?

Who has CSC consulted as they developed their long-term accommodation strategy and will these entities stand to benefit from a future penal gravy train?

While the Introduction of the CSC Review Panel noted that the study was "not mandated to consider the introduction of privately-run penitentiaries into the federal correctional system", it appears as though private interests may still shape the future of federal penality (the infliction of pain) in this country in one form or another.

The Fiduciary Responsibility of Parliamentarians is a Two-way Street

2011-03-16T17:22:00.019-04:00

While Canadians wait to find out whether or not the minority Government of Canada will be found in contempt of Parliament for refusing to disclose the fiscal costs and related information pertaining to their punishment agenda, the ruling Conservatives attempted to avoid this eventuality by tabling a binder to members of the Standing Committee on Procedure and Government Affairs moments before their meeting today outlining many of the same figures disclosed a month ago in an Excel sheet (read 17 February article by David Akin).

In what can only be described as a bewildering day, with Parliamentarians and witnesses discussing a range of topics including access and the right to information, the need for government secrecy and the application "Cabinet confidence", and the costs of punishment bills and new prisons, we're left swimming in so many details that it is hard to decipher what the main issues are and who, if anyone, is in the wrong. And depending on where you sit on the political fence, maybe the creation of uncertainty around these issues was the objective being pursued going into today's proceedings.

While I found myself scratching my head at several points this morning and this afternoon, I do think there is some clarity that can be gained from this political gong show.

During many points of the day, Parliamentarians and their guests were discussing whether or not "Cabinet confidence" can be invoked to withhold information from Canadians and their elected representatives. While no one challenged this feature of Parliamentary governance today, as far as I recall, this non-existing debate sidetracked one of the main issues at stake, which was to determine whether or not the costs of punishment bills are matters of "Cabinet confidence" in the first place. Unfortunately, the line between what matters are or are not, and when these matters are or are not matters of "Cabinet confidence" is no clearer today.

A second issue that emerged over the course of the day was the disagreement between government Ministers and opposition MPs over whether the costs of new federal penal infrastructure initiatives should have been included in the package delivered to the committee today. While the Conservatives insisted that because these figures were not requested as part of Liberal Finance Critic Scott Brison's recent Question of Privilege (read 7 February post), opposition MPs appeared to be puzzled by the notion that the penitentiary construction associated with this government's punishment agenda would not be disclosed. To agree with a government that insists that their punishment bills and prison construction are two separate issues, one would have to conclude that the opposition parties are just not asking the right questions. Perhaps "show me the money" would have been a more effective approach.

A third issue that was raised on multiple occasions, was the federal government's rationale behind not including the costs of their punishment bills for the provinces and territories in the documents tabled in February or today. Both Conservative Ministers and MPs defended the absence of such details in the projections produced by their government, noting that the provinces and territories supported their 'tough on crime' proposals. While this claim is true in some cases (e.g. the Truth in Sentencing Act), it certainly does not apply across the board. More importantly, this omission is irresponsible given the fact that at the end of the day there is only one taxpayer and they need to know what they'll be on the hook for.

A fourth issue that has yet to be resolved, as Parliamentarians sift through the pile of documents tabled today, is whether or not the documents tabled by the Minister Nicholson and Minister Toews - or Batman and Robin - provide the basis through which the reliability of the cost projections enclosed can be evaluated. As noted by the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer last month, such a determination requires the disclosure of "analysis, key assumptions, drivers, and methodologies behind the figures presented" (read p. 2). Should such information not be included in the impressive binder given to MPs today, the Conservatives cannot legitimately claim that they have been acting in good faith as has been the party line.

In reflecting upon today's developments, one could rightly critique the Conservatives for not fulfilling their fiduciary responsibility to provide Parliamentarians with the full financial costs of proposed legislation so that they can make informed decisions of these matters. At the same time, one must also ask why it has taken so long for opposition members to exercise their fiduciary responsibility and demand this information be tabled prior to voting on the bills before them - a responsibility they did not exercise on numerous other occasions since 2006 where the members of at least one of their parties supported the bills that have become law. Did the costs not matter then?

This being the case, the democratic crisis currently before us cannot be viewed simply as a function of an administration that refuses to share information that belongs to the taxpayers of Canada, but rather the emergence of a brand of politicking where MPs are more concerned about their future electoral prospects than making principled decisions.

Whether it's a ruling party who hides behind "Cabinet confidence" to postpone the disclosure of details related to their proposed bills instead of putting forward legislation, tabling the related costs and defending their position, or opposition parties who allowed the Conservatives to run roughshod over Canada's democracy, presumably because they were afraid of being labelled 'soft on crime', all Parliamentarians are wearing egg on their faces today and they only have themselves to blame for the stench that surrounds them.

Related coverage:

- CBC News

- CBC's Inside Politics

- CBC's Power and Politics

One Pig Deserves Another

2011-03-14T21:29:00.006-04:00

Since last June, the Liberals have been lamenting about the penal pork barrelling of the minority Conservative Government of Canada (read 22 June 2010 press release). By the time the summer and Ignatieff's bus tour-de-force across the country was coming to a close, the Liberal leader proclaimed that his party was opposed to Harper's plans for "prisons and planes", favouring instead government support for "child care, retirement security, post-secondary education..., economic security and defence of our public health care system" (read 1 September 2010 article by CBC News).

While some Canadians may have been encouraged by the Liberal rhetoric against a prison plan that will likely prove itself to be costly to taxpayers, not lead to the prevention of the complex harms and conflicts in our communities that we call 'crime' in the long-term, or meet the complex needs of the victimized and criminalized, they will likely not be happy to hear that under a Liberal government their hard earned tax dollars will fund "public space that can serve the cultural and economic interests of a whole region" such as a new sports arena in Québec City (read CTV News article).

With this pronouncement, it appears as though the two main competitors in the looming federal election have both decided to pay lip service to the need to trim the deficit and debt, while also peddling their own brands of pork they've stuffed up their noses and infused with a gravy so thick that they cannot smell their own warped priorities.

In the context of a fiscal crisis where Canadians are looking for leadership and for the priorities traditionally met by governments to be addressed, Harper and Ignatieff may portray themselves as having competing visions for the future of Canada, but all I see is an empty cupboard that I'll still be paying for because these two financial wizards are more interested in convincing voters that they can have it all instead of making the choices needed to ensure younger generations will receive value, or anything at all, for what they've paid for.

Time will only tell if the NDP offers their competing brand of electoral pork. Should this happen, future generations of Canadians can look forward to their own version of the Three Little Pigs to call their own. Unfortunately for them, in this tale they will have nothing more than a house made of borrowed money to protect them from the big bad wolf who will leave them with nothing - not even the hair on their chiny chin chins.

On the Politics and Experience of Waiting

2011-03-06T09:57:00.010-05:00

To be presented at the
John Howard Society of Canada National Staff Conference
Calgary, Alberta
March 10, 2011
9:35am – 10:20am

[CHECK AGAINST DELIVERY]

We live in a society obsessed with waiting.

If we were to look past the words and examine the actions of the minority Conservative Government of Canada, where they talk a good accountability and transparency game but in practice have arguably concealed the people’s information more than any government in our country’s history, one could argue that they’re waiting for a majority to reveal their full agenda.

If we were to look to the opposition parties, who in one breath are quick to claim that the Conservatives have a hidden agenda, yet in the next breath don’t offer a full platform so that Canadians could actually have a viable choice come the next election, they seem to be waiting too.

But waiting is not just a political game – it’s a way of life.

When I was in Grade 9, probably like many other kids, I had a friend who I spoke to on the phone everyday after school. I was crushing on this girl something fierce and I never had the guts to tell her how I felt. I made the calculation at the time that it would be better to have her as a friend than to tell her how I felt and potentially make things awkward if she didn’t feel the same way. I waited and as the days turned into weeks, months and years, she got a boyfriend, stopped talking to me, finished high school, got a job, got married, had kids and life went on.

Years later, I was told by one of her friends that this girl was crushing on me too during that time where we spent hours on the phone together both waiting. While I got over this a long time ago, the example for me highlights the sheer ridiculousness of this phenomenon – a phenomenon that has played itself out more than once in my life and probably in most of your lives as well.

So “what does this all have to do with prisons?” you’re probably wondering right now.

I would argue that individuals have been so scared of the ‘soft on crime’ label these days – a hollow and meaningless tagline if I’ve ever heard one – that many voices that should be out there on the front lines in opposition to the Conservatives punishment agenda remain muted or understated. They choose to just wait it out with the expectation of better days to come.

But can we afford to wait?

Will we wait until our prisons become dumping grounds for individuals suffering from mental health and drug addiction issues, the poor and other marginalized groups?

Will we wait until our prisons become dumping grounds for colonized Aboriginal peoples who are more likely to be incarcerated and represent 3 percent of Canada’s total population, while representing 18 percent of our federal and 27 percent of our provincial-territorial prison populations?

Will we wait until the rate of federal imprisonment for women jumps by more than 50 percent in the span of a decade?

Will we wait until our penitentiaries essentially serve as securitized geriatric units to accommodate the nearly 1 in 5 federal prisoners that are above the age of 50?

Will we wait until our prisons are used to warehouse individuals seeking refuge from war torn countries?

Will we wait until we build special prisons to criminalize and punish dissent manifesting against a capitalist mode of production that sees, according to some estimates, 85 percent of the world’s finances and resources controlled by 15 percent of the world’s population?

Will we wait until more than half of the prisoners warehoused in our provincial-territorial prisons on a given day are either awaiting trial or sentencing?

Will we wait until a significant number of prisoners in our provincial-territorial prisons are double- or triple-bunked in cells the size of an average household washroom?

Will we wait until our Minister of Public Safety publicly states that double-bunking is not inappropriate or does not violate international standards when he must be familiar with the UN Standards for the Minimum Treatment of Prisoners that strongly discourages this practice?

Will we wait until our Minister of Public Safety publicly states that double-bunking is not inappropriate or is not in conflict with good prison practice when he must be familiar with CSC Commissioners Directive 550 which states that “single occupancy accommodation is the most desirable and correctionally appropriate method of housing offenders”?

Will we wait until CSC’s Senior Deputy Commissioner sends a briefing note to the Minister of Public Safety stating that “Further expansion of double bunking increases the risk to staff and offender safety in an institution”, which is subsequently ignored?

Will we wait until CSC suspends Commissioners Directive 550 in order to prepare for the projected increase in the federal prison population that is likely to occur as a result of federal legislation?

Will we wait until the federal government drops the charade that they believe people can change and take the Correctional Service of Canada’s so-called Transformation Agenda, or perpetuation agenda as I like to call it, to its illogical conclusion by altering the agency’s name to the Detention Service of Canada?

Will we wait until we equate the pain and suffering of victims to the length of prison sentences – a measure which will never leave any of the parties involved satisfied with the process or outcome of the ‘just us’ process?

Will we wait until the role of victims is reduced to that of a witness of the Crown and the role of the accused is reduced to that of a spectator in the state’s pursuit of ‘just us’ which is little more than a pissing contest between lawyers?

Will we wait until the federal monies invested in victims is around $20 million – which admittedly is an improvement – versus $3 billion for the federal penitentiary system?

Will we wait until the first Federal Ombudsman for the Victims of Crime publicly states that “the needs of victims are very complex. They’re not easy solutions. It’s not about a tagline about building more prisons or getting tougher on criminals. Their needs are complex and they’re very in-depth and they’re long-term. I guess what I would be telling the government is, if you have a pot of money and you have a choice to build more prisons or help more victims, to help more victims” - a statement which is also ignored by the government of the day?

Will we wait until more children will not have a mother or father at home to help raise them because they are now more likely to find themselves incarcerated for the worst thing – not the only thing – they’ve done in their lives?

Will we wait until we are in the process of establishing 23 new prisons and 16 additions to existing facilities at the provincial-territorial level in the name of institutional security, rehabilitation and managing persistent overcrowding that will add over 7,000 new prisoners beds at a construction cost of $3 billion and counting, and hundreds of millions more in operational and management costs associated with prison expansion?

Will we wait until we are in the process of establishing the equivalent of 34 new units on the grounds of existing federal penitentiaries that will add over 2,500 new prisoners beds at a construction cost of $601 million, and hundreds of millions more in operational and management costs associated with prison expansion?

Will we wait until CSC’s budget goes up 86 percent in the span of six fiscal years when the best available independent and peer-reviewed scholarly evidence has shown that such a diversion of expenditures will likely have a negligible impact on ‘crime’?

Will we wait until we keep open aging institutions that are long past their life-cycles and are unfit for animals, let alone human beings because our government seems to have an ideological addiction to incarceration which they are unable or unwilling to kick despite the known harms of institutionalized punishment?

Will we wait until a teenager gets thrown into prison for throwing crab apples at a postman, is subjected to diesel therapy as she’s shipped across the country and hangs herself with a ligature in front of prison staff?

Will we wait until there are long waiting lists for programs in our penitentiaries that prisoners may need to take in order to safely reintegrate into society because under five percent of CSC’s budget is dedicated towards the provision of programming, and the Harper government decides it wants to go on a carceral binge that will only exacerbate the crisis in our federal prisons and undermine safety in our communities?

Will we wait until we divert so much taxpayer money towards new penal infrastructure, like they did in the United States, that reintegration services will invariably be impacted, causing massive hikes in recidivism rates?

Will we wait until we have had our own bad experience with increasing our reliance on incarceration and eventually decide to reverse course as many countries have, wasting vast amounts of financial and human capital in the process?

Will we wait until we divert so much taxpayer money towards building new prison beds that we see patients being treated in a Tim Horton’s instead of a hospital bed?

Will we wait until we divert so much taxpayer money towards building new prison beds that our kids will have to pay higher tuition rates and take-out small mortgage-sized loans to go to university and get a job they’re likely to be vastly overqualified for and doesn’t pay the bills?

Will we wait until the day that the quickest work that has been done by all political parties on our pension system – in a context where many Canadians who worked hard their whole lives to build their households, communities and country are living below the poverty line – involves removing pension benefits and entitlements from prisoners in the name of Clifford Olson?

Will we wait until the Conservatives and NDP lead an all-party charge to further restrict pardon eligibility in the names of Karla Homolka and Graham James, only to watch pardon prices spike as a result of related processing complications which will lead some to argue that pardons should not be subsidized by taxpayers, and should be paid fully by individuals who have served their time and need a pardon to obtain gainful employment so that they can move away from ‘crime’ and on with their lives?

Will we wait until the Conservatives and the Bloc Québecois form a ‘coalition’ and get rid of accelerated parole review for first-time, non-violent prisoners – a practice that was put into place for evidence-based reasons – in order to score political points in the belle province in the names of Earl Jones and Vincent Lacroix who took advantage of laissez-faire financial regulations?

Will we wait until the Conservatives and Liberals effectively usher in a sanitized version of the death penalty for individuals who have been convicted of committing homicides by getting rid of the faint hope clause when we already have some of the longest sentences for such acts in the world?

Will we wait until we focus so much attention on incarceration that we don’t maximize the potential of prevention as a viable alternative that could save taxpayers $7 in imprisonment costs for every $1 spent on initiatives that reduce victimization from happening in the first place?

Will we wait until jurisdictions like Texas are diverting significant taxpayer monies and resources away from building new prisons towards justice reinvestment schemes that aim to address some of the contributing factors to 'crime' such as mental health and drug addiction issues in the community in a manner that makes Canada look like a punitive outlier in a context where most governments elsewhere recognize that increasing our reliance on incarceration is expensive and does not contribute to enhancing safety in our communities in the long-term?

Will we wait until the penal policy debate in this country is focused on whether ‘crime’ – reported or unreported – is going up or down, instead of focusing on how we can allocate scarce ‘criminal justice’ resources to prevent the complex conflicts and harms in our communities that we call ‘crime’, and to meet the needs of the victimized and criminalized in a manner that is effective and provides the best value-for-money for taxpayers?

Will we wait until our government doesn’t feel the need to share the costs of their ‘justice’ or just us who can know bills?

Will we wait until our government is found in contempt of the Parliament of Canada for not allowing MPs to fulfill their obligations of holding those in power in check by refusing to disclose the full costs of their punishment agenda to Canadian taxpayers who will ultimately foot the bill for all federal and provincial-territorial expenditures related to their carceral binge?

It has been four years since the CSC Review Panel recommended the construction of new regional complexes, or McPrisons as some like to call them, and we’re still waiting for the government to make public the long-term accommodation strategy of the federal penitentiary system.

While Michael Ignatieff – like him or not – may be “just visiting”, putting himself out there to have his choices in life attacked and his motivations questioned in order to have the chance to represent a country that he left but came back to – no doubt because of his love for Canada, we’re just waiting.

I think we’ve waited long enough.

While people in the Middle East and North Africa take their destiny into their own hands, risking life and limb for a better life, we’re busy here waiting and shutting the fuck up, undercutting ourselves by cutting deals and building our own little empires – to get our own piece of the pie so to speak. And for what?

In my life, I’ve been told to wait.

Wait until you finish your PhD to speak out.
Wait until you get a job.
Wait until you get tenure.
Wait until you retire.

There is always something to wait for – so many things in fact, that we could live our entire lives waiting.

Wait until the right moment to promote penal abolitionism I’ve been told, as if one can work towards it by engaging in the same cowardice and gamesmanship exhibited by all political parties that we’re so quick to denounce, yet feel the need to wait and emulate to win.

This is said to me as if winning what will likely prove to be unwinnable in this lifetime, especially if we wait, was ever the point.

This is said to me as if putting an idea out there for debate like a heavy bag to get punched often and hard is not better than waiting and walking through life with a shadow hanging over you, like the one hanging over the Prime Minister Harper, that makes people suspect what you’re really all about.

In my life, there are times where I’ve waited – where I’ve waited so long that I either forgot what it was that I was waiting for or what I was waiting for was gone.

When I turned twenty-two my grandfather called me from a hospital bed in Windsor, Ontario to wish me a happy birthday. I missed the call and waited to call him back because when I spoke to him a few days before he sounded well and I had taken for granted that, just like every time before, he would still be here among the living the next day. I waited and I never talked to my Opa again. The man who gave so much of his time and invested it in me. The man who taught me how to read. I waited and seven years later as I wrote this I realized that I still haven’t forgiven myself for waiting, and I’m not sure if I ever can or ever will. It may seem like a trivial thing, but if there is one thing I regret in this life, above all else, it is the phone call that I waited to make and the conversation I subsequently never had the opportunity to have.

Life is not to be lived for regret – the regret of waiting.

Today, I choose to live life. How about you?

Thank you for your time. I hope this didn’t leave you waiting to move on with your day.

Some Rare Praise and a Word of Advice to the Non-fiscally Conservative Government on Shadow Management

2011-03-04T07:50:00.015-05:00

Shortly after panellists and MPs debated the best way to prevent victimization at the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security (which I'll discuss more below), Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced "$20 million over four years to Pathways to Education" in an effort to help the Canada's disadvantaged youth gain access to college and university education (read article by Adrian Humphreys).

While this funding does appear to have been included in Budget 2010 (read p. 73), I do want to commend the federal government for having invested this money and invested in our youth. In a climate of austerity - at least discursive austerity - I would encourage the non-fiscal Conservatives to divert their attention and our money away from new ways of putting more Canadians behind bars towards programs such as these that will likely prove to steer them away from being in conflict with the law.

Now for a word of advice to the federal government. Yesterday, I presented excerpts from a report I submitted to Parliament earlier this week entitled "Canada at a Crossroads: A Brief on Prison Expansion" (read 3 March post). On page 9 of the brief I note the following concerning the various budget projections for the Truth in Sentencing Act (2009):

"Following the release of the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer’s report that projected the implementation costs of the Truth in Sentencing Act (2009) to be approximately $5 billion for the federal government and another $5 billion to $8 billion for the provinces and territories over 5 years (read here), CSC Commissioner Don Head wrote an op- ed – published without supplementary documents – that pegged the cost of this one piece of legislation to be $2 billion over this period (read here). This figure was the same one used by Minister Toews since he revised his cost estimate for the law from “not more than $90 million” (read 27 April 2010 article by the Canadian Press) to $2 billion in April 2010 (read 28 April 2010 article by Janice Tibbetts)".

The inclusion of this narrative - which has been widely circulating in the media and political sphere since that time - in my brief prompted the following exchange between myself and Conservative MP Ben Lobb:

Lobb: "Mr. Piché, my first for you is, from your document on page 9, at the very bottom, you footnote a cost here. It was quoted from Mr. Minister Toews, footnote 78, from the Canadian Press from your brief. In this quote you're stating that this cost is $90 million. That is what you originally said. In actual fact, that's the supplementary estimates for the additional cost to the Truth and Sentencing Act for 2009-10, and 2010-11. Do you feel that this is a little out of context the way you put that in your document?"

Piché: "Mr. Toews was asked how much the Truth and Sentencing Act was going to cost by a member of the Canadian Press. I have the article here which I can table. He answered: "We're not exactly sure how much it will cost us. There are some low estimates and some that would see more money spent, not more than $90 million". That was his quote on the twenty-seventh. The next day his quote was $2 billion. That's my interpretation. The numbers changed. You can explain it if you'd like".

Lobb: "That's right. I just did explain it. The $90 million was for the"

Piché: "But that's not what he said".

Lobb: "The fiscal year and the balance moving forward".

Piché: "I think that's not what he said".

Lobb: "I think that's pretty straightforward. Thank you very much".

While I could criticize Mr. Lobb for defending what I have reason to believe was a budgeting error by the Minister of Public Safety (read 7 February post with ATI data), I'd rather focus my attention on how this whole disagreement could have been avoided in the first place.

Had the minority Government of Canada provided the “analysis, key assumptions, drivers, and methodologies behind the figures presented... basic statistics such as headcounts, annual inflows, unit costs per inmate, per full-time equivalent (FTE) employee, and per new cell construction" (read p. 2 of the 25 February 2011 PBO report here), this entire discussion around the costs of the Conservative punishment agenda would not also be a debate about government transparency. Just think about the amount of political points scored - or not scored depending on how you count such things - on this issue based on the fact that the federal government refuses to provide some 'truth in budgeting' along with their sentencing measures (read 22 June 2010 editorial in the Globe and Mail).

Had they put up the numbers with accompanying documents, sure they could have been subject to scrutiny from the Parliamentary Budget Officer and other experts, but so what? That's how deliberative democracy works and how good policy decisions are made. And isn't that what we should aspire to?

Politically, such an approach would have been advantageous for the federal government as well, because at least then they could legitimately claim they did their best to cost out their punishment agenda with the best available information at the time and would be in a stronger position to defend what they appear to view as the right thing to do.

But because this was and continues to be the road not taken, presumably because they would prefer that their critics and opponents discursively box with a shadow instead of a tangible punching bag, what they've failed to realize is that the only shadow many Canadians are concerned with is the one they've cast upon themselves (view Rick Mercer's 23 February rant).

Presentation to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security

2011-03-03T22:02:00.008-05:00

[CHECK AGAINST DELIVERY]
* Click on 3 March 2011 on the calendar to watch video feed

Panellists - Order of Appearance
Asa Hutchinson

Justin Piché
Dr. Irvin Waller
Dr. Ian Lee

Background of the Presenter

My name is Justin Piché and I’m a PhD Candidate in Sociology at Carleton University currently completing a dissertation that examines the scope and factors shaping prison expansion in Canada at this time.

My remarks today outline some of my findings which I’ve included and fully referenced in a report I submitted to the Clerk of your committee entitled “Canada at a Crossroads: A Brief on Prison Expansion”.*

* The link to the brief will be added once the report is available on the Parliament of Canada website.

Context

Prior to the 2006 federal election campaign, where all federalist political parties touted their ‘tough on crime’ credentials in the shadow of the so-called summer of the gun, prison systems across Canada were already facing significant challenges.

In our provincial-territorial prisons, where we typically house individuals awaiting trial and sentencing or those who are serving sentences of two years minus a day, the vast majority of cells, often the size of an average household washroom, were occupied with one, two or sometimes even three prisoners (read here).

This trend has been primarily driven by rising remand populations, which increased 83 percent from the mid-1990s to 2004-2005 (read here), where on a given day, half of the provincial-territorial prison population was composed of remanded individuals.

In 2008-2009, nearly 6 out of every 10 prisoners housed in our provincial-territorial prisons were on remand (read here).

In our federal penitentiaries, where we typically house individuals serving sentences of two years plus a day, the rate of double-bunking this past decade has been as high as 11.1 percent in April 2001 and as low as 6.1 percent in July 2004.*

* Resource Management Branch (October 2009) National Report on Requests for Exemptions to Commissioner’s Directive 550: October 1, 2009 to March 31, 2010, Ottawa : Financial Strategies and Analysis Division, Correctional Service of Canada, p. 3 – obtained through federal Access to Information requests A-2010-00041.

This continues to be an operational reality in our federal penitentiaries, where the rate of double-bunking sat at 9.4 percent in August 2009 and was expected to sharply increase in anticipation of the implementation of the Truth in Sentencing Act (2009).*

* Ibid, p. 15.

This is occurring despite the existence Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) Commissioner’s Directive 550 which states that “[s]ingle occupancy accommodation is the most desirable and correctionally appropriate method of housing offenders” – a directive that was recently suspended in August 2010 (read 11 August 2010 post).

The situation also persists in spite of the fact that Canada is a signatory to the United Nations’ Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, which strongly discourages this practice.

The situation persists in spite of the warning from CSC’s Senior Deputy Commissioner Marc-Arthur Hyppolite to Minister Toews outlined in a February 2010 Briefing Note that states “Further expansion of double bunking increases the risk to staff and offender safety in an institution” (read 8 August 2010 post with ATI data).

It’s widely recognized by experts, those working in prisons and politicians that penal institutions have become dumping grounds for those suffering from drug addiction and mental illness, the poor, colonized Aboriginal peoples and other marginalized groups.

Many of the facilities where we house prisoners were and continue to be decrepit and dilapidated to a point where they are places unfit for animals, let alone human beings (read here).

Faced with this situation, prison officials have argued that new prisons are required not only for the reasons stated above, but also because they claim that current facilities are inconducive to the provision of modern security practices and meeting their institutional programming objectives.

New Provincial-Territorial Penal Infrastructure

In Canada’s provinces and territories, 23 new prisons and 16 additions to existing facilities are at various stages of planning and completion (read 16 February post).

The construction cost for these initiatives is over $3 billion and rising, with formal announcements and funding for a few projects still to come.

In the case where the 7,000+ new prisoner beds slated for operation are filled, each at an average cost of $161.80 per day or $59,057 per year (read here), taxpayers would be on the hook for close to another $400+ million per year, plus other operational and management costs.

It should be noted that most jurisdictions did not consider the impact of federal legislation when planning their penal infrastructure initiatives according to documents and information I’ve obtained.

Thus, it’s likely the case that more provincial-territorial prison construction may be required should the current penal policy trajectory continue.

New Federal Penal Infrastructure

At the federal level, the equivalent of 34 additional units to be built on the grounds of existing CSC institutions have been announced to date (read here).

In the case where the 2,552 prisoner beds slated for operation are filled, each at an average cost of $322.51 per day or $117,715.15 per year (read here), taxpayers would be on the hook for close to another $300+ million per year, plus other operational and management costs, with CSC’s long-term accommodation strategy also looming on the horizon.

In response to pressure from the opposition, who had tabled a Question of Privilege that sought the disclosure of the costs of the sentencing measures before the Parliament of Canada, the Conservatives provided an Excel sheet to Parliamentarians that estimated the federal costs of the 18 bills tabled this legislative session to be approximately $2.7 billion over five years (read 17 February article by David Akin).

As noted by the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, this document does not provide the “analysis, key assumptions, drivers, and methodologies behind the figures presented. Further, basic statistics such as headcounts, annual inflows, unit costs per inmate, per full-time equivalent (FTE) employee, and per new cell construction have not been made public” (read here).

Equally as important is the fact that the costs that may be incurred by provincial and territorial governments resulting from these measures are also not included in the federal government’s projections (read 17 February article by Gloria Galloway).

While this approach to fiscal transparency may facilitate agenda setting, excluding citizens and their political representatives from having access to the information that belongs to them undermines the prospect for public debate on matters affecting their lives and is damaging to the democratic process.

Canadians do not need to be told they support the penal policies of their federal government.

What they need is to have access to their information so that they can decide for themselves what they support.

After all, taxation necessitates representation not obfuscation.

Moving Forward

Irrespective of whether ‘crime’ – reported or unreported – is going up, down or remains stable, no one’s disputing whether something should be done.

What is being disputed, however, is how scarce criminal justice resources should be spent to meet the needs of the victimized and criminalized in a manner that is effective and provides the best value-for-money for taxpayers.

According to the best available evidence, some of which can be gleaned from the most recent issue of the journal of Criminology and Public Policy containing contributions from 22 leading scholars in the field including conservative criminologist James Q. Wilson, increasing the rate of imprisonment has:

1) a negligible impact on ‘crime’ unless pursued to a point where any short-term benefit derived is far outweighed by the long-term consequences;

2) has a disproportionate impact on marginalized groups who are more likely to be caught in the net of the penal system;

3) diverts resources away from meeting the needs of the criminalized and the victimized;

4) hinders the reintegration of those in conflict with the law into society; and

5) has a damaging impact on the communities and loved one’s of prisoners, at an untenable economic cost particularly when compared to more effective and less costly prevention programs that Dr. Waller will be taking to you about today.

While prison expansion has been presented as being inevitable, it is one choice among many other policy options.

Moving forward, it’s strongly recommended that a federal punishment legislation moratorium be adopted, and that the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security launch a task force that brings to the table all affected parties to evaluate the effectiveness of addressing social issues through criminalization, to discuss the impacts of criminalization and victimization, and to share best practices, including justice reinvestment and prevention which are proven to be more effective at reducing conflicts and harms in our communities at a lesser cost to taxpayers, in order to chart a path for responding to ‘crime’ in this country going forward.

Thank you for your time.

2011-2012 Main Estimates Tabled: CSC's Budget Up Another 21.2 Percent

2011-03-01T15:23:00.027-05:00

Following the publication of an article by Globe and Mail journalist Bill Curry, that noted that in a context of "government-wide restraint", the budget of the Correctional Service of Canada was "projected to rise 27 per cent from the 2010-2011 fiscal year to 2012-13, when it will reach $3.1 billion" (read 29 March 2010 article), I conducted additional research to compare how much the Government of Canada was spending on prisons (read 31 March 2010 post) and victims of 'crime' (read 6 April 2010 post A).

At that time, I had noted that CSC's budget had increased to $2.46 billion, up 54% from $1.597 billion in 2005-2006, the last year the Liberals were in power. I also found that while the overall budget for victims of 'crime' had increased from $13 million in 2009-2010 to $16.3 million in 2010-2011, the Conservatives made cuts to some portions of the victims portfolio, that - according to Steve Sullivan, the first Ombudsman for the Victims of Crime - were earmarked for frontline service provision (read 6 April 2010 post B).

Today, Curry was at it again, having combed the newly released 2011-2012 Main Estimates to find that, in the context of massive government deficits, the Conservatives had still managed to set aside some penal bacon and gravy, with a 21% increase in CSC's budget (read article; also see articles by John Ivison and David Akin). While the non-fiscal Conservatives pegged CSC's expenditures for 2011-2012 to be $2.926 billion in last year's budget (read CSC Report on Plans and Priorities, section 1.4), it looks like they missed their mark by $55.5 million, having set aside $2.981 billion in the 2011-2012 Main Estimates for their federal penal fiefdom. It also appears that they have again increased funding for some victims programs and decreased funding for others, or that at the very least some victims budget shifting has occurred that requires further explanation. See below to judge the federal government's main estimates for yourself.

CSC Expenditures

Total Budget = $2.98 billion

UP 21.2% from $2.46 billion (2010-2011)

UP 86.7% from $1.597 billion (2005-2006)

Capital Expenditures = $517.5 million

UP 57.1% from $329.4 million (2010-2011)

UP 374.5% from $138.2 million (2005-2006)

* Source: 2011-2012 Main Estimates, page 299.

Victims' Expenditures

Office of the Ombudsman for Victims of Crime = $737,543

UP 4% from $712,271 (2010-2011)

* Source: 2011-2012 Main Estimates, page 229.

Child Advocacy Centres = $1.4 million (new money)

Victims of Crime Initiative = $4.8 million (new money)

* Source: 2011-2012 Main Estimates, page 230.

Grants for the Victims of Crime Initiative = $350,000

DOWN 30% from $500,000 (2010-2011)

DOWN 142.8% from $850,000 (2009-2010)

Contributions for the Victims of Crime Initiative = $4,736,566

DOWN 10% from $5,250,000 (2010-2011)

DOWN 60.4% from $7,598,000 (2009-2010)

* Source: 2011-2012 Main Estimates, page 231.

Budget Figures You Can Trust?

The figures above do not match the rhetoric of a government that claims it is strongly committed to meeting the needs of victims that, as noted by Steve Sullivan, "are very complex. They're not easy solutions. It's not about a tag line about building more prisons or getting tougher on criminals. Their needs are complex and they're very in-depth and they're long-term" (read 6 April 2010 post B). For the non-fiscal Conservatives, the needs of victims is just another issue that can be dealt with by increasing our reliance on incarceration - a failed approach to reducing victimization, at a hefty price tag.

Since Conservative MP Shelly Glover stated "I have to disagree with some of the numbers" that I had presented on CBC's Power & Politics with Evan Solomon on 31 March 2010 concerning CSC's budget pulled from the 2010-2011 Main Estimates (read 1 April 2010 post), this time around I encourage you to download the 2011-2012 Main Estimates for yourself (click here). From there, use the search function and type "Correctional Service of Canada" (see pages 17, 38, 290, 299, 302, 377, 392, 403, 501 and 502). Repeat the same exercise by typing "victims" (see pages 144, 229, 230, 231, 301, 460, 480 and 502 for the results). If you find the same figures that I've outlined above, don't be fooled by a Conservative MP should one again deny their own budget figures when presented with them. Yes, they do exist - as inconvenient as that might be.

Canada at a Crossroads

2011-02-23T10:50:00.011-05:00

To be presented at the NORML Canada Tour Event

in Kingston, Ontario at the Mansion
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
6:30pm - 9:30pm

Acknowledgements

Thank you to NORML Canada for organizing this event and for all the work you do to promote sensible drug policy in this country. I am excited to take part in this panel and look forward to the dialogue that will follow the presentations. To those who have heard me speak before on the issue of prison expansion in Canada, please bear with me. I promise not to take too much of your time.

The Scope of Prison Expansion in Canada

In a context of declining police-reported ‘crime’ rates and a fiscal crisis (read 22 February article by Edward Greenspan and Anthony Doob), where we will likely see tax hikes, cuts to social services or both to balance the books, billions of doallars worth of new penal infrastructure is being established across the country.

In Canada’s provinces and territories, whose governments are responsible for the incarceration of individuals awaiting trial and sentencing, and the administration of sentences of two-years-minus-a-day, 23 new prisons and 16 additions to existing facilities are at various stages of planning and completion. The construction cost for these initiatives is $3 billion and counting, with formal announcements and funding for a few projects still to come. Over 7,000 new prisoner beds will be established should all of these new facilities come online, accompanied by hundreds of millions of dollars every year in operational and management costs (read 16 February post).

Here in Ontario, new remand centres are being established in Toronto and Windsor. The 1,650-bed Toronto South Detention Centre, which is intended to replace the 550-bed Toronto Jail, will cost Ontario taxpayers $1.1 billion over 30 years. This means for those of us in our late twenties, we will still be paying for the construction of this facility well into our fifties and its operation likely until the day we die.

The costs for the 315-bed South West Detention Centre, which is intended to replace the 140-bed Windsor Jail, have yet to be released. It should be noted that an Infrastructure Ontario web page notes that Forum Social Infrastructure has been selected to undertake this project and a formal announcement is forthcoming.

As stated in my handout, a primary rationale for building these facilities is that most provincial-territorial remand centres and prisons are well-over capacity, with high-levels of double-bunking and sometimes even triple-bunking in violation of international human rights standards (see UN Standards for the Minimum Treatment of Prisoners).

In many of the documents I have obtained, it is also claimed that the prison population is no longer a homogeneous population – as if it ever was – and that new penal infrastructure is needed to spatially segregate the “changing prisoner profile” said to be composed of more gang-affiliated prisoners, persons with mental health and substance abuse issues, as well as an increasing number of criminalized women and colonized aboriginal peoples who are vastly overrepresented in our penal institutions.

Authorities also claim that these new facilities are needed because aging penal infrastructure is inconducive to the provision of institutional security and the delivery of programming.

It needs to be noted, that most of these facilities were not planned with federal sentencing legislation in mind, which means that the thousands of new prisoner beds that are coming online at the provincial-territorial level will likely not be enough to absorb the influx of new prisoners should legislation such as S-10 receive support from federal parliamentarians.

As part of the implementation of the so-called Truth in Sentencing Act (2009), the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) and the federal government have announced the equivalent of 34 new units to be built on the grounds of existing penitentiaries across the country. These new units will add 2,552 prisoner beds at a price tag of $601 million dollars for construction (read 14 February post).

Just as was the case in the closure of our prison farms, the minority Conservative Government of Canada is establishing the equivalent of a new federal penitentiary in Kingston without consulting your community. With 6 new units at local institutions including Bath, Collins Bay, Millhaven, Frontenac and Pittsburgh that will add 484 prisoner beds, you must ask yourselves whether this government takes its responsibility of representation that comes with taxation very seriously.

Still to come are the costs of hundreds of new cells that are to be outfitted with double-bunks in violation of, the now suspended, CSC Commissioner’s Directive 550 which specifies that single-accommodation is the most correctionally-appropriate approach to housing federal prisoners.

According to government estimates, the ‘Truth in Sentencing’ project will cost the federal treasury a total of $2 billion over 5 years. This is the cost for just one Conservative punishment bill that was supported by all the opposition parties when it came time for parliamentarians to stand in their place. This also does not include the costs of the legislation for the provinces and the territories that have, thus far, been rebuffed in their efforts to obtain funds from the feds to weather the impending carceral storm that, in this case, they themselves called for.

It should be noted that the projections outlined by the federal government are far lower than those projected by the independent Parliamentary Budget Officer. Without cooperation from CSC and without access to their projections, Kevin Page’s office has pegged the cost to the federal treasury at $5 billion over 5 years, and the costs to the provinces and territories at $5 – 8 billion during this period.

On the Docket

The secrecy with which this public policy file has been treated did not stop with the implementation of the so-called Truth in Sentencing Act. Until last week, the Harper government refused to disclose the costs of their justice – or ‘just us’ who can know – measures.

In the face of a Question of Privilege tabled by Liberal Finance Critic Scott Brison which sought these and other budget projections that the government had deemed matters of “Cabinet confidence” – a motion which could of very well result in a finding of contempt of Parliament – mommy and daddy government who claim Canadians are willing to pay the costs, yet are resistant to release this information so that we can decide for ourselves, finally provided members of the opposition with an excel sheet listing their ‘just us’ bills and the total federal cost for these measures.

Nowhere on this sheet – that mine as well of been written on a napkin for all the information that was included on it – were detailed calculations as to how government officials arrived at their cost estimate, which is approximately $2.7 billion over five years.

Also significant is the fact that bills like C-16, that aim to greatly restrict the use of cheaper and more effective community-based sentences, and bills like S-10, that specify mandatory minimum sentences, will have a significant impact on the number of prisoners in our provincial-territorial institutions. Yet, there is no provincial-territorial costing component included in the federal government’s own projections of their punishment measures. That they either don’t have or won’t provide the costs that they are downloading onto the provinces and territories is indicative of the rushed way in which these bills have been tabled.

With this said, it should be noted the provinces and territories did ask for some of these pieces of legislation, which probably explains their silence on these matters until recently. In a climate where one is positioned as either being ‘soft’ or ‘tough on crime’ – a hallow and meaningless dichotomy if there ever was one – many have been reluctant to criticize the Conservatives punishment agenda which, if allowed to persist, will lead to higher taxes, cuts in social services, or both if anyone was to be honest about the budgetary challenges we are faced with in this country.

About a year ago, when I started to present the preliminary research findings from my doctoral dissertation, I asked an audience in Ottawa whether we want to live in a country that constructs prisons instead of building daycares and schools for our children, and hospital beds for our aging parents and grandparents.

Some will argue that our generation can pay for it all, but we know in our hearts that something will have to give.

Will it be the pensions of our parents who have worked all their lives to sustain their families, communities and country that will be forced to make sacrifices?

Will it be the next generation of kids who may have to take-out mortgage-sized loans to go to university or college?

Will it be us, who may be the first Canadians in generations to not have access to a public health care system?

Or will it be all of us who will bare the costs of an ineffective and inhumane approach to the complex harms and conflicts in our communities that we call ‘crime’?

When a pollster recently asked Canadians whether they support the Conservative prison construction plan, and 43 percent of those polled said “it’s unaffordable”, while 57 percent thought “it’s a worthwhile initiative” (read 22 February article by Meagan Fitzpatrick), I wonder if that 57 percent would support the punishment agenda if they asked themselves the questions I’ve been asking myself as a young Canadian who, along with my contemporaries, will be footing the bill for this pending disaster.

Talking Out of Both Sides of Their Mouths

Given that we are in a minority government situation, it should be noted that while some Liberals, NDP and the Bloc have been highly critical of the penal policy proposals tabled in Parliament, the Conservatives – much like the awkward freshman I was in high school – needs a dancing partner, one that may be reluctant or completely willing, if he or she wants to dance, or in this case pass their punishment bills.

Whether it is because members of the opposition have actually agreed with some of the proposals tabled by the Harper government, or have lacked the political courage to stand in their places and cash the discursive cheques they routinely write and put on display via the media, all parties have been complicit – to a greater or lesser degree – in our march towards mass incarceration.

Whether it is the Liberals who by supporting S-6 ushered in what will amount to a sanitized death penalty for some new prisoners by eliminating the faint-hope clause, the NDP who led the opposition charge to meet the government halfway on C-23 when the spectre of Karla Homolka getting a pardon was raised this past summer, or the Bloc who moved to abolish accelerated parole review by effectively co-authoring C-59 with the Conservatives, they are all to blame for the ballooning budget of the penal system.

While I am hopeful that the tide may turn, it will be up to Canadians come election time to decide whether or not they want a government – in whatever form it will take – that prioritizes prison expansion in the name of ‘public safety’ when a vast body of research shows that such an approach will undermine this purported goal, while also further eroding the few remains of community we have in this country.

So, now that I’ve induced many of you to grab a drink, I’d like to lighten-up the mood a little bit with a song. I don’t have my guitar with me, so I need you to put your hands together. I call this one “Locking Up Our Sons and Daughters”.

Locking Up Our Sons and Daughters

Chorus (x2):
Roll down the river
Roll down the way
Overthrow the politicians
That get in the way

I see the Prime Minister
Running towards the hill
Locking up our sons and daughters
Oh, that’s his greatest thrill

How do you turn a surplus
Into a deficit?
Shall we call you Mr. Harper
Or Mr. Harpercrite?

Chorus (x2)

Michael Ignatieff
Talks out of two sides of his mouth
He must’ve learned that trick
In his time down south

Have you found your backbone
To do what’s right?
Or is a just measure of pain
Too far out of sight?

Chorus (x2)

For Jack Layton
Mandatories are rarely a safe bet
Unless we can punish
The corporate jet set

How can it be
That it’s good for this ‘other’?
We may not like em’
But they still have a mother

Chorus (x2)

Last week Duceppe
Wore a punitive vest
Lump the white collar ‘criminals’
With the ordinary rest

Principles sacrificed
Was it worth the so-called votes?
Once worried about fresh meat
Now sitting on the populist boat

Chorus (x2)

Billions of dollars on new prisons
And mounting deficits
They criminalize difference
And don’t seem to give two shits

Well, Mr. Prime Minister
I guess it’s up to you
More prisons and higher taxes
Whatchu gonna to do?

Chorus (x2)

S-10 and the Need for Persistence

To conclude, I’d like to reflect on S-10.

A number of groups have been involved in campaigning against S-10, including NORML. It appears as though these efforts have succeeded for the time being, with the opposition parties having publicly stated that they will oppose this bill should it come to a vote.

While you could reflect on your efforts and claim victory, in the field of penal policy no victory is permanent and there is no shortage of other pieces of legislation that require the same effort and energy if the tide is to change.

We have to remember that if one rests following a successful campaign, proponents of repression will work to fill the silence with a politics of fear and create a ‘useful crisis’ where one arguably did not exist before to advance their agenda.

This was the case in the United States where slavery was replaced by Jim Crow, which was then replaced by mass incarceration.

This is the case in Canada where mental institutions and residential schools are being replaced by prisons.

Anti-oppression work, as Norwegian criminologist Thomas Mathiesen (1974) would say, is ‘unfinished’ work. It is a process of perpetual dismantling and rebuilding that must always be in the making if we are to avoid the institutionalization of authoritarian impulses.

This work, as noted by Deutsch criminologist Louk Hulsman, is also about abolishing the authoritarianism that lies within ourselves ingrained through socialization where control and punishment in our daily interactions is normalized to the point that we don’t even notice it.

I suggest that if we’re serious about opposing oppression, it is necessary that we look within and free ourselves of the prisons we choose to live inside because we do and always will have this choice no matter where we’ve stood before.

Thank you.

PRESENTATION HANDOUT

With a Penal Infrastructure Tab of $2.83 Billion and Counting, Some Provinces and Territories Appear to Have Had Enough

2011-02-16T00:27:00.046-05:00

* Updated 2 March 2011

In May 2010, I was invited to present an overview and implications of a report I had submitted to the Federal-Provincial-Territorial (FPT) Heads of Corrections (available upon request) to the PT group at their bi-annual meeting in Ottawa.

During my presentation (read here), I noted that through informal information requests by phone and e-mail, as well as Access to Information and Freedom of Information requests, I discovered that the provinces and territories were in the process of establishing 22 new prisons and 16 additions to existing facilities. Once all of the facilities come online, I had noted that over 6,500 new prisoner beds would be created at a cost of $2.829 billion dollars for construction plus the expenditures associated with building new facilities in St. John's (Newfoundland), Labrador, Windsor (Ontario) and Fort Smith (Northwest Territories) that had yet to be released.

Since that time, the Government of Manitoba has revised the costs of some of their penal infrastructure projects, bringing the total provincial-territorial construction tab to $2.8348 billion. The Government of British Columbia has also recently announced that it is holding public consultations to establish a new 360-cell prison that will be able to hold up to 720 prisoners in the Okanagan region to be completed by 2015 (read 6 December 2010 press release). According to an official from the BC Corrections Branch, the estimated cost of this facility, which has yet to be approved, is $200 million for construction. This same official notes that previous additions to the Kamloops Regional Correctional Centre, Fraser Valley Regional Correctional Centre and the Alouette Correctional Centre for Women for which I previously had no data cost a total $14 million to build.

With all these facilities at various stages of completion (see below), it should be noted that it appears as though most of these new prison beds were not planned to respond to an increase in provincial-territorial populations resulting from federal legislation (see 16 February 2010 post). According to the information and records I've obtained, only Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island and Ontario have attempted to incorporate such considerations in their penal infrastructure planning. Thus, should federal laws generate a significant influx of new prisoners, the capacity crisis that prisons systems across the country are experiencing will likely only be exacerbated by the minority Conservative Government of Canada's punishment agenda - an agenda were the Feds would "rather not share" details pertaining to the costs of their 'just us' bills with Canadian taxpayers.

While there have been rumblings from the provinces and territories indicating that they are frustrated with having to do deal with the federal government's penal downloading (see 2010 Year-in-Review for Developing Stories to Watch For in 2011 - #4), it appears that some high-ranking provincial-territorial politicians are now sounding off on having to foot this bill.

In a story by Althia Raj of Sun Media (read here), Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty is quoted saying that "If they [the Feds] intend to put in place new laws that make it more expensive for us at the provincial level when it comes to levels of incarceration, length of incarceration, then we expect to be compensated for that - especially at a time when objective data demonstrates that crime is going down".

An article by Lee Greenberg of Postmedia News also documented remarks made by McGuinty (read here), who openly questioned the Conservative punishment agenda, asking "Why are we building more prisons? Why are we lengthening sentences when crime is actually going down? [...] Because when I talk to Ontarians, their first concern is not keeping people in jail longer, it's 'When are you going to build this new hospital?' ... 'What are we going to do about strengthening the economy?'".

With a prison population already bursting at the seams, details from a taxpayer-funded report commissioned by the provinces and territories dubbed the Changing Face of Corrections (2009) that has yet to be released to the public (read 30 October 2010 post) are also now emerging.

According to an article written by Globe and Mail journalist Gloria Galloway (read here), the federal government has rejected a recent bid by their provincial-territorial partners to change the two-year rule - that currently sees all prisoners sentenced to two-years-plus-a-day serving their time in federal penitentiaries and those sentenced to two-years-minus-a-day serving their time in provincial-territorial prisons - to a six-month rule proposed in this report. In exchange, the provinces and territories would be responsible for the supervision of all prisoners in the community. The logic behind this proposal being that these governments are better networked with the employment, housing, health, mental health and other services they are responsible for administering that prisoners may need to access upon their release from prison.

While the federal government has indicated that it does not want any part of this discussion, which even prompted them to abort their participation from the Changing Face of Corrections study, this conversation is not one they can runaway from as long as their urge to punish continues to cloud their judgement and affect other jurisdictions. After all, as many fiscal conservatives have noted, at the end of the day, there is only one taxpayer.

PROVINCIAL-TERRITORIAL PENAL INFRASTRUCTURE INITIATIVES

(2007 - present)

* This data was originally compiled during the primary data collection phase of my doctoral dissertation from January 2009 to May 2010. As noted above, this component of the project relied on the use of informal information requests by phone and e-mail, as well as Access to Information and Freedom of Information requests. Where the information below has been updated from the FPT report I submitted in May 2010, it is based on figures made available via press releases published from May 2010 to present. Figures pertaining to federal penal infrastructure initiatives are also available on this blog (read 14 February 2011 post).

Newfoundland and Labrador

Replacement Prison(s)

1 or 2 - for Her Majesty's Penitentiary

Location(s): to be determined

Net capacity gain: to be determined

Estimated construction cost: to be determined

Project phase: on hold

* Studying the impacts of federal legislation prior to implementation

New Remand Centre

Labrador Remand Centre for Youth, the Mentally Ill and Women

Location(s): to be determined

Net capacity gain: to be determined

Estimated construction cost: to be determined

Project phase: on hold

* Studying the impacts of federal legislation prior to implementation

Prince Edward Island

Addition - Provincial Correctional Centre

Location: Charlottetown

Net capacity gain: 48 beds

Estimated construction cost: $3.4 million

Project phase: operational

Replacement Remand Centre / Prison

Prince County Correctional Centre

Location: Summerside

Net capacity gain: 42 beds

Estimated construction cost: $18.5 million

Project phase: on hold

* Studying the impacts of federal legislation prior to implementation

Nova Scotia

Replacement Prison

Location: Coalburn

Net capacity gain: 164 beds

Estimated construction cost: $31.3 million

Project phase: procurement

New Brunswick

Replacement for the Moncton Detention Centre

Southeast Correctional Centre

Location: Shediac

Net capacity gain: 122 beds

Estimated construction cost: $36 million

Project phase: construction

Replacement Prison

New Dalhousie Correctional Centre

Location: Dalhousie

Net capacity gain: 70 beds

Estimated construction cost: $20 million

Project phase: construction

Québec

New Replacement Prison

Location: Sept-Îles

Net capacity gain: 28 beds

Estimated construction cost: $78 million

Project phase: procurement

New Replacement Prison

Location: Roberval

Net capacity gain: 31 beds

Estimated construction cost: $107 million

Project phase: procurement

New Replacement Prison

Location: Sorel-Tracy

Net capacity gain: 149 beds

Estimated construction cost: $143 million

Project phase: construction

New Replacement Prison

Location: Amos

Net capacity gain: 84 beds

Estimated construction cost: $111 million

Project phase: procurement

Closed Prison Retrofit and Re-opening

Location: Percé

Net capacity gain: 46 beds

Estimated construction cost: $11 million

Project phase: operational

Addition - Établissement de détention

Location: Québec

Net capacity gain: 96 beds

Estimated construction cost: $19 million

(shared with other additions)

Project phase: construction

Addition - Établissement de détention

Location: Amos

Net capacity gain: 36 beds

Estimated construction cost: $19 million

(shared with other additions)

Project phase: construction

Addition - Établissement de détention

Location: Trois-Rivières

Net capacity gain: 96 beds

Estimated construction cost: $19 million

(shared with other additions)

Project phase: construction

Addition - Établissement de détention

Location: Sherbrooke

Net capacity gain: 96 beds

Estimated construction cost: $19 million

(shared with other additions)

Project phase: construction

Ontario

New Remand/Intermittent Centre -

Toronto South Detention Centre / Toronto Intermittent Centre

Location: Toronto

Net capacity gain: 1,100 beds

Estimate construction cost: $1.1 billion

Project phase: construction

New Remand Centre - South West Detention Centre

Location: Windsor

Net capacity gain: 175 beds

Estimate construction cost: to be announced

Project phase: procurement

Manitoba

Replacement Prison

New Prison for Women

Location: Headingly

Net capacity gain: 55 beds

Estimated construction cost: $60 million

Project phase: construction

Addition - Millner Ridge Correctional Centre (phase I)

Location: Beauséjour

Net capacity gain: 160 beds

Estimated construction cost: $50 million

Project phase: operational

Addition - Brandon Correctional Centre

Location: Brandon

Net capacity gain: 80 beds

Estimated construction cost: $5.7 million

Project phase: operational

Addition - The Pas Correctional Centre (phase I)

Location: The Pas

Net capacity gain: 40 beds

Estimated construction cost: $3 million

Project phase: construction

Addition - Millner Ridge Correctional Centre (phase II)

Location: Beauséjour

Net capacity gain: 64 beds

Estimated construction cost: $17 million

Project phase: construction

Addition - Millner Ridge Correctional Centre (phase III)

Location: Beauséjour

Net capacity gain: 160 beds

Estimated construction cost: $25 million

Project phase: procurement

Saskatchewan

New Remand Centre / Prison

New Provincial Correctional Centre

Location: Regina

Net capacity gain: 211 beds

Estimate construction cost: $50.3 million

Project phase: operational

New Remand Centre

Location: Saskatoon

Net capacity gain: 427 beds

Estimate construction cost: $87 million

Project phase: procurement

Addition - Saskatoon Provincial Correctional Centre

Location: Saskatoon

Net capacity gain: 90 beds

Estimate construction cost: $5.8 million

Project phase: operational

Alberta

New Remand Centre - New Edmonton Remand Centre

Location: Edmonton

Net capacity gain: 1,944 beds

Estimate construction cost: $568.5 million

Project phase: construction

British Columbia

New Remand Centre - Surrey Pre-trial Services Centre

Location: Surrey

Net capacity gain: 432 beds

Estimated construction cost: $130 million

Project phase: procurement

New Prison

Location: Okanagan

Net capacity gain: 720 beds

Estimated construction cost: $200 million (to be approved)

Project phase: site selection

Addition - Kamloops Regional Correctional Centre

Location: Kamloops

Net capacity gain: 50 beds

Estimated construction cost: $14 million

(includes project costs for 100-bed FRCC and 24-bed ACC additions)

Project phase: operational

Addition - Fraser Regional Correctional Centre

Location: Maple Ridge

Net capacity gain: 100 beds

Estimated construction cost: see above

Project phase: operational

Addition - Alouette Correctional Centre for Women

Location: Maple Ridge

Net capacity gain: 24 beds

Estimated construction cost: see above

Project phase: operational

Addition - Alouette Correctional Centre

Location: Maple Ridge

Net capacity gain: 208 beds

Estimated construction cost: $43.5 million

Project phase: construction

Addition - Prince George Regional Correctional Centre

Location: Prince George

Net capacity gain: 24 beds

Estimated construction cost: $11.5 million

Project phase: operational

Nunavut

New Prison - Women's Correctional Centre

Location: Iqaluit

Net capacity gain: 8 beds

Estimated construction cost: $2.9 million

Project phase: operational

New Prison - Men's Correctional Centre

Location: Rankin Inlet

Net capacity gain: 46 beds

Estimated construction cost: $29.4 million

Project phase: construction

Northwest Territories

Replacement Prison

New Territorial Women's Correctional Centre

Location: Fort Smith

Net capacity gain: 27-32 beds

Estimated construction cost: to be determined

Project phase: preliminary planning

Yukon

Replacement Prison - New Yukon Correctional Centre

Location: Whitehorse

Net capacity gain: 87 beds

Estimated construction cost: $67 million

Project phase: construction

The Running Federal Punishment Tab: 34 Penitentiary Units Announced to Date

2011-02-14T09:15:00.019-05:00

"Mistrust those in whom the urge to punish is strong".

- Friedrich Nietzsche

As part of the minority Conservative Government of Canada's plans to implement their punishment agenda, a total of 34 new units to be built on the grounds of existing penitentiaries have been announced to date. According to the information provided to Canadians thus far, these projects will add a total of 2,552 new prisoner beds at a construction cost of $601 million, or an average of $235,305.64 per prisoner bed (I wonder how much an average hospital bed costs to build).

The costs outlined above do not include the annual structural deficit associated with staffing, operating and maintaining these new units. These itemized details, beyond the $2 billion over five years guestimation associated with these penal infrastructure initiatives, are not included in federal government press releases likely because CSC and their political masters prefer to avoid acknowledging the long-term impacts of their decisions. This practice is part of a trend where the Feds conceal the costs of their 'just us' bills from Canadians, sometimes in the name of "Cabinet confidence", arguably in an effort to protect their penal fiefdom (read article by John Ibbitson).

With other punishment bills having been passed and more sitting on the order-of-paper in Parliament, this is just the beginning of the penal pork barrelling that we will see should this agenda be allowed to continue in the context of budgetary deficits, declining police-reported 'crime' rates and other jurisdictions running away from their failed mass incarceration policies.

That the Conservatives would "rather not share" these costs with their colleagues in the opposition and Canadians, says a great deal about their approach to accountable and transparent government. We are being denied our right to information and to decide for ourselves if we support Harper's carceral binge because Mommy and Daddy government claim to know better. Apparently, we should take comfort in knowing that they are on "our side".

But are they on our side? Is a Prime Minister who routinely dispatches Justice Minister Rob Nicholson and Public Safety Minister Vic Toews - or Batman and Robin as I like to call them - to warn citizens of the 'imminent dangers' we face in our communities due to decades of 'Liberal' penal policy, as if we live in Gotham City, really on our side?

Is a Prime Minister who noted on the fifth anniversary of Conservative rule that "Canadians expect to live in a country where they don't have to worry when they turn the lights out at night, where they don't have to look over their shoulders when they walk the streets, where they can expect to find their car where they parked it", when he knows full well that most Canadians are not particularly concerned with 'crime' and generally feel safe, on our side?

Watching interviews with Conservative MPs such as Rob Nicholson (see 11 February 2011 interview on CBC's Power & Politics), who routinely neutralize questions and critiques vis-à-vis their punishment agenada by responding with their 'just us' taglines, I would like to laugh if the consequences of their rhetoric wasn't so damaging.

That members of the so-called Conservative Party are willing to take every opportunity to divide Canadians and strike fear in our hearts is quite rich, especially when contrasted with Harper's narrative of governance "with hope and not with fear" and a Canada that is "more united, stronger, more prosperous and safer". From my vantage point, I can't think of any government that has divided Canadians, eroded remains of community, and has undermined our collective prosperity and safety in our neighbourhoods more than this government.

NEW CSC UNITS ANNOUNCED TO DATE

ATLANTIC REGION

August 17, 2010 - $40 million for construction

Springhill Institution (192 new beds)

November 19, 2010 - $42.5 million for construction

Atlantic Institution (96 new beds)

Westmorland Institution (50 new beds)

December 10, 2010 - $2.5 million for construction

Nova Institution for Women (18 new beds)

Total new units = 5

Total new beds = 356

Total construction costs = $85 million

QUÉBEC REGION

October 6, 2010 - $10 million for construction

Montée St.-François Institution (50 new beds)

October 6, 2010 - $40 million for construction

Federal Training Centre (96 new beds)

October 6, 2010 - $10 million for construction

Sainte-Anne-des-Plaines Institution (50 new beds)

January 10, 2010 - $73 million for construction

Cowansville Institution (192 new beds)

Donnacona Institution (96 new beds)

Total new units = 6

Total new beds = 484

Total construction costs = $133 million

ONTARIO REGION

September 7, 2010 - $15 million for construction

Fenbrook Institution (96 new beds)

October 6, 2010 - $32.5 million for construction

Millhaven Institution (96 new beds)

October 6, 2010 - $35 million for construction

Bath Institution (192 new beds)

October 6, 2010 - $28 million for construction

Collins Bay Institution (96 new beds)

January 10, 2010 - $20 million for construction

Frontenac Institution (50 new beds)

Pittsburgh Institution (50 new beds)

January 10, 2010 - $10 million for construction

Beaver Creek Institution (50 new beds)

Total new units = 8

Total new beds = 630

Total construction costs - $140.5 million

PRAIRIE REGION

August 31, 2010 - $15 million for construction

Drumheller Institution (96 new beds)

August 31, 2010 - $10 million for construction

Drumheller Institution Annex (50 new beds)

August 31, 2010 - $15 million for construction

Bowden Institution (96 new beds)

August 31, 2010 - $10 million for construction

Bowden Institution Annex (50 new beds)

November 12, 2010 - $45 million for construction

Stony Mountain Institution (96 new beds)

Rockwood Institution (50 new beds)

January 10, 2011 - $55 million for construction

Riverbend Institution (50 new beds)

Willow Cree Healing Lodge (40 new beds)

Edmonton Institution (96 new beds)

Total new units = 9

Total new beds = 624

Total construction costs = $150 million

PACIFIC REGION

August 30, 2010 - $15 million for construction

Mission Institution - 96 new beds

November 29, 2010 - $77.5 million for construction

Kent Institution (96 new beds)

Matsqui Institution (96 new beds)

Pacific Institution (96 new beds)

Ferndale Institution (50 new beds)

Fraser Valley Institution (24 new beds)

Total new units = 6

Total new beds = 458

Total construction costs = $92.5 million

Réforme de la justice criminelle: Les provinces impatientes de connaître les coûts

2011-02-10T22:00:00.004-05:00

La Presse
Politique, jeudi 10 février 2011, p. A13

Exclusif

Réforme de la justice criminelle
Les provinces impatientes de connaître les coûts

De Grandpré, Hugo; Leclerc, William

OTTAWA - Tenues dans l'ignorance quant aux coûts des réformes du gouvernement Harper en matière de justice criminelle, les provinces multiplient les pressions pour avoir l'heure juste, a appris La Presse.

Au moment où la plupart d'entre elles sont aux prises avec un déficit, les provinces "demeurent critiques face à l'escalade perçue des coûts des initiatives fédérales et du manque de consultation substantielle", peut-on lire dans une note d'information marquée "secrète", remise l'an dernier au ministre fédéral de la Sécurité publique, Vic Toews, que La Presse a obtenue en vertu de la Loi sur l'accès à l'information.

"Le ministre fédéral de la Sécurité publique fait souvent face à des questions agressives quant à la mise en oeuvre et aux coûts", ajoute l'auteur de la note au sujet de l'atmosphère des rencontres des ministres de la Justice du Canada et des provinces.

Outrage?

Le mécontentement qu'évoquent les fonctionnaires d'Ottawa rejoint celui qui se fait de plus en plus sentir dans la classe politique fédérale: lundi, le Parti libéral a soulevé une question de privilège pour demander au président de la Chambre des communes de contraindre le gouvernement à divulguer son évaluation des coûts.

Près du tiers des projets de loi du gouvernement à l'étude au Parlement sont associés à la justice criminelle. Malgré tout, le gouvernement Harper a toujours refusé de dire combien coûterait cet imposant corpus législatif au motif qu'il s'agit de secrets relevant du Conseil des ministres.

Pourtant, l'été dernier, le directeur parlementaire du budget, Kevin Page, a évalué qu'un seul de ces projets de loi pourrait coûter jusqu'à 10 milliards aux gouvernements fédéral et provinciaux dans les cinq prochaines années. Le projet en question, devenu loi depuis, abolit le fait de compter en double le temps passé en détention avant le prononcé de la peine. Ottawa croit que le coût de cette mesure ne dépassera pas 2,1 milliards.

Se basant sur le précédent établi par le président de la Chambre il y a quelques mois dans le dossier des documents sur les détenus afghans, l'auteur de la motion, le député Scott Brison, a fait valoir que, en gardant ces données secrètes, le gouvernement Harper empêche les parlementaires de faire leur travail et se rend coupable d'outrage au Parlement.

Le gouvernement a promis de répliquer dans les prochains jours.

Pour tenter d'y voir plus clair, les provinces ont de leur côté mis sur pied en 2006 un "groupe de travail sur les impacts cumulatifs" de la législation fédérale. Or, selon d'autres documents obtenus en vertu de la Loi sur l'accès à l'information, cette fois par un étudiant au doctorat qui se spécialise dans ces questions, Justin Piché, cette dernière tentative s'est soldée par un échec. Et apparemment, les provinces sont toujours dans l'ignorance - du moins le Québec. "Il est difficile, voire impossible, de prévoir ou d'évaluer avec précision avant plusieurs années les impacts particuliers de chaque projet de loi, par exemple en raison de la non-disponibilité des données de base", a déclaré un porte-parole du ministère de la Sécurité publique du Québec.

Dans un tel contexte, la décision du président de la Chambre des communes "a le potentiel de changer la donne dans le débat politique au Canada", a écrit Justin Piché lundi sur son blogue (tpcp-canada.blogspot.com).

Do Parliamentarians Have the Right to Know the Costs of the 'Conservative' Punishment Agenda?

2011-02-07T22:49:00.020-05:00

Today, Liberal MP and Finance Critic Scott Brison "rose on a question of privilege and asked the Speaker of the House to rule that the government must provide the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance with details concerning its multibillion-dollar corporate tax cuts and prison expansions" (read press release).

Linking the suppression of these budgetary details to the federal government's refusal to turn over documents that would either absolve or implicate Canadian Forces in the abuse of Afghan detainees, Brison stated that "[w]ithholding this information impedes Parliament's ability to fulfill its duty to scrutinize the estimates, and that is a breach of the House's privilege".

Given the history of government secrecy on the 'just us' file, it is about time that a question of privilege on this matter be tabled.

In 2010, the minority 'Conservative' Government of Canada refused to disclose cost estimates related to the implementation of a number of bills (e.g. C-4, C-16, C-21, C-39, S-6, S-9 and S-10) that Liberal Public Safety Critic Mark Holland requested in an Order-of-Paper question tabled in October 2010 citing "Cabinet Confidence" (see Question No. 470).

This administration also refused to disclose their projections related to the implementation of the 'Truth in Sentencing' Act (2009) to Kevin Page, the Parliamentary Budget Officer of Canada (read 22 June 2010 post), whose mandate "is to provide independent analysis to Parliament on the state of the nation's finances, the government's estimates and trends in the Canadian economy; and upon request from a committee or parliamentarian, to estimate the financial cost of any proposal for matters over which Parliament has jurisdiction".

That the current Government of Canada continues to deny the right of Canadian taxpayers to know the full financial costs of their punishment agenda hardly surprises me. After all, this is the government whose Minister of Public Safety Vic Toews once stated that "I'd rather not share my idea on that" when asked about the overall cost of their 'just us' bills (read 28 April 2010 article by Janice Tibbetts).

While I compiled penal infrastructure data from provincial and territorial (PT) governments across the country, for whom I wrote an unsolicited report entitled "An Overview of Prison Expansion in Canada" that I presented at the May 2010 bi-annual meeting of the PT Heads of Corrections in Ottawa (read presentation notes here), the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) refused to disclose their prison expansion plans to me both over the phone and in response to several of my Access to Information (ATI) requests, often citing "Cabinet Confidence" (read 14 April 2010 post).

My odyssey with CSC continues today. On 25 June 2010, I submitted the following ATI request (#A-2010-00165) to CSC:

...all requests produced or held by CSC related to the development of the project definition plan / P3 [public-private-partnership] assessment referred to in the organization's documents, the development of a planning concept for regional complexes, the preparation of a business case for a specific delivery model (financing model) for regional complexes, and the development of a corresponding national accommodation strategy. I am also requesting all records pertaining to the criteria of all capital projects were screened against and the Capital Plan Review which was accepted by EXCOM [Executive Committee] in January 2009. Date range: January 1, 2008 to June 18, 2010.

The following is a timeline of what has happened on this file to date:

30 June 2010: The CSC ATIP Division acknowledged the receipt of my request.

12 July 2010: The CSC ATIP Division requested that I deposit 50 percent of the costs ($50) for searching and retrieving the records I sought.

7 October 2010: The CSC ATIP Division advised that "an extension of up to 180 days is required to process your request beyond the 30-day statutory limit as consultation with another government department are necessary. Consultations are required with the Privy Council Office [PCO]. The new statutory release date for your request in February 4, 2011".

15 December 2010: A CSC ATIP Analyst sent an e-mail following our telephone conversation noting that "[m]any of the records that are relevant to this request have been sent to PCO for review. There is usually an approximate turnaround time of 6 months which may mean you will not receive a response until June 2011. You have indicated that you wish to proceed with the processing of these records but would like to receive a partial release in the interim for those records which do not require consultation with PCO. We can do a partial release once we have conducted a review of those records not being sent to PCO and the necessary consultations on the records have been completed".

A month and a half later, I have yet to see any records pertaining to CSC's long-term accommodation plan, which could include a proposal for the construction of new penitentiaries. Given that the submission of this report is to take place in March 2011 (see Order-of-Paper Q-471), this development is troubling in that it does not afford Canadian taxpayers the opportunity to have access to information related to this proposal and to debate its merits while it is being considered by the federal government. However, given the potential expenditures involved (see section 3 of the Deloitte "Independent review of the cost estimate for the construction and operation of a new corrections facility" in the 2007 CSC Review Panel Report), it is understandable that the tax cutting and big spending 'Conservatives' would not want such information in the public domain as the Minister of Finance, Jim Flaherty, has promised that upcoming federal budgets will not involve the introduction of new massive spending programs.

But not to worry... we Canadians, after all, are willing to pay the price for a ballooning prison population and shiny, new federal penal infrastructure according to the 'Conservatives'. Apparently, the Feds can tell us what to think, but just not tell us the facts. The question is why. What is the "government that rode into Ottawa on the horse of accountability" and transparency so worried about?

Where the costs of their punishment bills are concerned, it may be the case that the federal government and its agencies have little idea of how many new prisoners these sentencing measures will generate and the related costs. In a recent memorandum to the Minister of Public Safety dated 1 September 2010, the author stated that a report presented to "Deputy Ministers in June 2009" noted that the Federal-Provincial-Territorial Cumulate Impact Working Group's "costing tools had not yet achieved consistency" (see slide show below, pp. 17-18). This could explain in part why the federal government's original estimate to implement the 'Truth in Sentencing' Act was revised from $90 million to $2 billion in April 2010 (read 27 April 2010 article by Kathryn May), and that it was noted in an e-mail exchange between Public Safety Canada officials that "Bureaucrats may share the blame as they did not make appropriate analysis and provided inadequate cost estimates for this legislation" (see slide show below, p. 10).

In light of this, one has to wonder whether the 'Conservatives' are not releasing the costs of their punishment bills to parliamentarians while they debate their merits to avoid acknowledging the fact that the size of the penal pork barrel and length of the 'law and order' gravy train is still not known. Protected under the banner of "Cabinet Confidence", this mystery is one that could easily be solved with a main course of transparency and a side of honest debate served fresh by the federal government.

Brison noted that "[w]hen it comes to the cost of justice bills, this information would have been part of the Memorandum to Cabinet for each bill, but the Access to Information Act makes it clear that the background information for these bills are not a Cabinet confidence once the bills are introduced to Parliament". He then concluded that the "government's refusal to provide that information constitutes a breach of the House's privilege and a contempt of Parliament".

In the coming days, the 'Conservatives' will be preparing a "comprehensive response" to the complaints made by Brison (read article by the Canadian Press). Once the response is tabled, House Speaker Peter Milliken will likely have to once again rule on whether or not Parliamentarians, and by extension Canadians, have the right to know such information as they vote on 'Conservative' punishment bills that have been widely criticized as unnecessary in a time of declining police-reported 'crime' rates, wasteful in the context of colossal budgetary deficits, and ineffective at enhancing safety in jurisdictions where similar measures have been enacted.

This Milliken ruling, just like the Afghan detainee documents decision, has the potential to significantly alter the terrain of public policy debates in Canada should the Speaker of the House rule in favour of Brison. Whether opposition parties would actually take advantage of such a decision, and vote down socially corrosive and treasury depleting punishment bills on mass, is another question.

Public Safety Canada ATI Request #A-2010-00017

Reintegration For Those Who Can Pay

2011-02-02T16:05:00.022-05:00

As news that Graham James - who had sexually abused a number of his players during his time as a youth hockey coach - had obtained a pardon surfaced (read 4 April 2010 article by Bronskill and Cheadle), the government quickly scrambled to respond as it did when a similar controversy arose in October 2006 (read 8 April 2010 article by Neil Morrison). This time, the Conservatives introduced Bill C-23, which proposed to make a number of changes to granting of pardons including eliminating pardons for a number of offences. The bill also sought to change the term "pardon" to "record suspension" as it was argued by 'Public Safety' Minister Vic Toews that "It's not the state's business to be in the forgiveness business" and that the new term better reflected what a pardon actually accomplishes (read 12 May 2010 article by John Ward).

In the month following the May 2010 tabling of the bill, the government routinely stoked the ire of the public by claiming that if the legislation was not passed by the House of Commons and Senate before the summer recess that ex-prisoners like Karla Homolka would take advantage and apply for a pardon. As there were numerous problems with the original piece of legislation, the NDP initiated a compromise whereby the bill would be split and enough support could be generated to pass Bill C-23A - an act that would give the Parole Board of Canada the ability to reject pardons if they determined that granting a pardon would "put the administration of justice into disrepute". This bill was passed and received Royal Assent on 29 June 2010.

With a manufactured 'crisis' averted, there were hearings in the Senate concerning the retrograde 'reforms' to the pardon system in Fall 2010 (September-October 2010; November 2010). During this time, the federal government raised the pardon application from $50 to $150, which took effect on 29 December 2010 (read Parole Board of Canada notice; read article by Tonda MacCharles).

As "the parole board told the government it would need more staff, training and funds because a recently passed law requiring it to assess the behaviour of pardon applicants to ensure granting one would not "bring the administration of justice into disrepute"" (read CBC News article here), Toews stated that user fees for pardon requests should be raised from $150 to $631 so that "criminals pay their own way" to bankroll the skyrocketing cost of the short-sighted policy change his government initiated (see CPC press release).

To support the proposed user fee hike, Toews took it upon himself to speak for every resident of this country, noting that "Canadians are right to expect that convicted criminals be held fully accountable for their crimes... That's why our government is proposing that criminals pay for the administrative costs of applying for pardons" (read article by Daniel Leblanc).

He also noted that "There are numerous examples of law-abiding Canadians being required to pay administrative application fees, and it is wrong that criminals are being subsidized in this manner" (read article by Mike De Souza). He did so, while not acknowledging the fact that most government user fees (e.g. to process driver's licences and health cards) are subsidized.

Toews added that "[i]ncreasing the user fee will contribute to the effectiveness and long-term sustainability of the Parole Board of Canada's pardons program, which is not sustainable at the current cost, and ensure it is able to continue to meet its mandate". He said this when it was his government who generated this useful 'crisis' (from their vantage point), which could have easily been avoided had legislators taken the time to properly study the full implications of the measure they passed. But, as is the trend, these kinds of deliberations are increasingly being jettisoned in favour of rash decision-making in the face of the hollow platitudes that have become synonymous with the so-called Conservatives and their tagline 'just us' campaign.

Over the years, many have argued that Canada has a two-tier justice system where the rich and poor are policed differently, have differential access to good lawyers during court proceedings, and are adjudicated and sentenced accordingly. Yesterday's user fee hike proposal for processing pardons would be, if implemented, another example of the inequities that are perpetuated by the penal system in this country. This fact was reflected in a story by the Canadian Press who reports that "Toews acknowledged it means some people will be better able to afford a pardon than others" (read article here).

Minister Toews acknowledgement that the fee hike may result in some criminalized persons not being able to afford to apply for pardons suggests that he knows full well that many of these individuals are unable to obtain gainful employment to raise funds for such an expenditure because the stigma of 'offender' remains with them long after they have served their sentences. If this is acknowledged, it also needs to be noted that the increase in user fees for pardon applications will essentially condemn otherwise eligible individuals who cannot afford the price tag to perpetual condemnation long after 'justice' has been served.

In an interview on CBC's Power & Politics, Toews was pressed on this issue in the following exchange with host Evan Solomon (watch minutes 0:02:00 to 0:08:38):

Solomon: ...the question is are you double-punishing people who have paid their debt, their burden of debt to society? [...] a lot of people, you heard it from the Elizabeth Fry Society, they're poor, they cannot afford to pay $600 and they want to reintegrate and if you refuse to grant them a pardon after their crime free you may actually end-up paying more in social services. You can't reintegrate these people. After all Minister, they have paid their debt to society.

Toews: No they haven't, they have a criminal record and that criminal record is there for a very specific purpose. It's to warn other individuals that this individual has committed a criminal offence. We simply do not allow [a pardon for] let's say a child sexual predator whose been convicted of a crime. Just because that individual has served their sentence, doesn't mean he has served his debt to society. That criminal record serves a very important protective purpose for society at large.

Having stated his position concerning the need to perpetuate the stigma of criminalization, pointing to the most sensational and rare examples to justify his case, the Minister seemed to discount the impact that a $631 user fee for processing pardon applications could have on affected individuals:

... Now remember each person, before they can apply for a pardon before the Parole Board, must have a five-year crime free period or a ten-year period in the case of more serious crimes. I would suggest that a criminal can pay something if that person has been on the straight and narrow for the last five to ten years towards that pardon.

This comment reflects that the man responsible for 'public safety' in this country is either completely out-of-touch with the realities faced by criminalized populations or simply does not care. As noted by Kim Pate, the Executive Director of the Canadian Associations of Elizabeth Fry Societies, if this policy were to be implemented it would be tantamount to "asking people to essentially stay stuck in poverty". If this was the case, "what are their options if in fact they can't afford a pardon?"

Such a consideration does not appear to factor into the decisions of the minority Conservative Government of Canada who have proven themselves to be willing to step on the necks of the marginalized when they are down, while also disregarding the value of giving people the opportunity to turn their lives around. By restricting pardons further, the Minister of 'Public Safety' is also undermining the objectives of his own office by perpetuating the very conditions in the lives of individuals - poverty, hopelessness and despair - that lead many to commit 'crimes' in the first place.

This position was echoed by Liberal Public Safety Critic Mark Holland and NDP Public Safety Critic Don Davies who were also interviewed by Solomon (watch minutes 0:28:15 to 0:36:28). Noting the proposed four-fold increase in the user fee to process a pardon application, Solomon opened the floor to Holland to express his thoughts:

... if you create barriers... if you create a wall that people can't jump over then your in a situation where those people are trapped in poverty. They can't get good jobs, they can't pay taxes, so it costs the government infinitely more to trap that person in poverty, potentially put them in a situation to be on social assistance, instead of making sure they have an opportunity to be an equal citizen... it seems like it's Halloween everyday for Vic Toews. He's constantly trying to scare people. But the reality about who we're talking about is non-violent offenders.

[...]

If you look at any other jurisdiction, where you're successful is where you reduce barriers to becoming productive members of society. When you have someone who is given the opportunity to be given a job, and to better themselves, pay taxes, and get involved in the community - that's something we want to encourage, we want to stand behind. And when you take somebody who is making minimum wage, who can't afford rent or groceries, and tell them they have to spend more than $600 to get a pardon, which is essential to them getting a better job, you've just blocked them from becoming a more productive member of society, blocking their options, blocking hope, and it's backwards - backwards from a perspective of public safety, it's going to cost the government a lot more money.

Davies then expressed his viewpoint on the importance of pardons and the problems with applying a cost-recovery model in the sphere of 'criminal justice':

... I think what the Minister misses is that a pardon granted by society is an important part of our corrections system. It's not solely for the purposes of the individual involved, it is also an important carrot in the system to balance-off the stick of incarceration.

[...]

I would point out that we don't use the cost recovery model in any aspect of our criminal justice system. When someone is charged with impaired driving and they go to court, we don't ask them to pay the costs of their trial. We don't say this is what it costs for society to administer the justice system. I think it's inappropriate for the Minister of Public Safety to import sort of a commercial aspect to what is a public policy and [the] criminal justice system.

Davies then turned his attention to the broader costs of the 'Conservative' punishment agenda, citing a CSC document that indicates that there will be over 3,300 staff hired by the agency at a cost of $264 million a year to manage the influx of thousands of more prisoners in the years ahead. He then argued that the proposed pardon processing cost-recovery plan is a signal that "the Minister is worried about is how they're going to pay for this clearly irresponsible plan".

Holland followed his colleague's comments by returning to the 'public safety' side of the equation, noting that "if you're going to block somebody from getting hope and opportunity, and a good path, and destroy their ability to get a good job, where is that going to lead in terms of recidivism? I don't think to good places".

The Liberal Public Safety Critic then commented again on the collateral consequences of hiking pardon application fees for affected individuals, the administration of justice and safety in our communities:

And really what you are doing is creating two classes of criminals. You have a single mother who writes a fraudulent welfare cheque - which she shouldn't do obviously - to go out and pay for things... and then you have somebody who is involved in a white collar crime who comes out and has lots of money, and 700 bucks is easy for them to drop. Where's the logic in this? Basically, what you're saying is if you got money you have one system of justice and if you don't, if your poor, if you're in a difficult situation, we're going to keep you poor, we're not going to let you get up, we're not going to let you get that good job and get an opportunity to pay taxes and create opportunities for your children or be able to send them to post-secondary education. I mean this creates cycles which feed upon themselves, which create more problems and make a society that ultimately costs more and has more crime.

Given the consequences of such policies, it is likely that individuals and groups will take up the minority Conservative Government of Canada's offer to 'consult' on this potential user fee increase. However, given the government's position, I suspect that these consultations will ultimately go nowhere and that this issue will lead to a number of challenges under section 4 of the 2004 User Fees Act (read Treasury Board of Canada guidelines here).

* For related commentary watch the 2 February 2011 Power Panel with Greg Weston (CBC News), Rob Silver (Crestview Strategy) and Stephen Taylor (National Citizens' Coalition) for an interesting exchange on the politics of revenge and cost recovery (minutes 1:17:30 to 1:23:50).

Church Council on Justice and Corrections Launches "Prison Facts - The Co$ts" Campaign

2011-01-25T07:04:00.008-05:00

Last week, Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page expressed concern over the ability of the Government of Canada to balance its books through the attrition of the public service, particularly in a context where the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) is planning to hire 4,000 new staff members as part of the Conservatives wholesale expansion of the federal penitentiary system (read 21 January 2011 article by CBC News).

While the government would like us to believe that the only people concerned with the skyrocketing costs of imprisonment in a context of an overall decline in police-reported 'crime' rates is an 'out-of-touch' Parliamentary Budget Officer (who's projections have been far more accurate than those of Finance Minister Jim Flaherty), as well as members of the opposition, media commentators and academics who apparently don't walk the same streets as other Canadians, the Conservatives are now being criticized by religious groups for their backward punishment agenda (see images below).

On 17 December 2010, the Church Council on Justice and Corrections (CCJC) and the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops sent a letter to Prime Minister Harper expressing concern with the federal government's plan to increase the use of incarceration. The letter noted the following:

Dear Mr. Prime Minister,

The Church Council on Justice and Corrections (CCJC) is most concerned that in this time of financial cuts to important services you and the government of Canada are prepared to significantly increase investment in the building of new prisons.

Proposed new federal laws will ensure that more Canadians are sent to prison for longer periods, a strategy that has been repeatedly proven neither to reduce crime nor to assist victims. Your policy is applying a costly prison response to people involved in the courts who are non-violent offenders, or to repeat offenders who are mentally ill and/or addicted the majority of whom are not classified as high risk. These offenders are disproportionately poor, ill-equipped to learn, from the most disadvantaged and marginalized groups. They require treatment, health services, educational, employment and housing interventions, all less expensive and more humane than incarceration.

The Canadian government has regretfully embraced a belief in punishment-for-crime that first requires us to isolate and separate the offender from the rest of us, in our minds as well as in our prisons. That separation makes what happens later easier to ignore: by increasing the number of people in jail for lengthier sentences you are decreasing their chance of success upon release into the community.

The vision of justice we find in Scripture is profound and radically different from that which your government is proposing. We are called to be a people in relationship with each other through our conflicts and sins, with the ingenious creativity of God's spirit to find our way back into covenant community. How can that be if we automatically exclude and cut ourselves off from all those we label "criminal"?

Increasing levels of incarceration of marginalized people is counter- productive and undermines human dignity in our society. By contrast, well supervised probation or release, bail options, reporting centres, practical assistance, supportive housing, programs that promote accountability, respect and reparation: these measures have all been well-established, but they are underfunded. Their outcomes have proven to be the same or better in terms of re-offence rates, at a fraction of the cost and with much less human damage.

Public safety is enhanced through healthy communities that support individuals and families. We, therefore, respectfully ask you to modify your government's policy taking into consideration the impact it will have on the most disadvantaged, its lack of effectiveness, and its serious budgetary implications.

Sincerely,

The Church Council on Justice and Corrections

In response to this letter, will Prime Minister Harper cast the first stone and lump the CCJC with other proponents of the 'soft on crime' approach?

Will Prime Minister Harper turn the other cheek and repent for his misguided punishment agenda?

Or will Prime Minister Harper simply ignore this organization founded by the Anglican Church of Canada, Baptist Convention of Ontario and Quebec, Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, Christian Reformed Churches of North America, Disciples of Christ in Canada, Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada, Mennonite Central Committee Canada, the Presbyterian Church in Canada, Religious Society of Friends (Quakers), the Salvation Army in Canada and the United Church of Canada like he has so many others with whom he disagrees?

Only time will tell, but in the interim the CCJC has launched its "Prison Facts - The Co$ts" campaign, which aptly displays some of the key problems with the 'conservative' punishment agenda.

Related media coverage:

- Globe and Mail - 26 January 2011 (read article)

- CBC Radio "As It Happens" - 27 January 2011 (listen here)

- CBC Television "Power & Politics with Evan Solomon" - 2 February 2011

(watch minutes 36:30 t0 42:15)

Kingstonians Get a Glimpse Into the 'Back Stage' of Penal Infrastructure Marketing

2011-01-19T16:13:00.009-05:00

Last week, I was invited by OPIRG Kingston, Students for Accessible Education and EPIC to the penitentiary capital of Canada to discuss some of my doctoral research findings at the city library (read event notice). While the organizers were expecting thirty to forty Kingstonians to attend, well over a hundred concerned residents - including many from the Save Our Prison Farms campaign - came to the presentation to learn more about the scope of prison expansion in Canada, and more specifically, in their backyards.

Introduction (watch here)

In the introduction, I reviewed penal infrastructure projects springing-up across the country, with an emphasis on the approach used by the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) and the minority Conservative Government of Canada to establish these facilities without robust consultation with community stakeholders - an approach modelled on the process that led to the decision to close prison farms.

Part I (watch here)

In part I of the presentation, I focussed on the strategies used to establish new penal infrastructure in Canada, both historically and in the contemporary context.

Part II (watch here)

In part II of the presentation, I reviewed the origins of penal infrastructure marketing in this country and showed excerpts from a must-see video (for those who have a sense of humour) produced by the Canadian Penitentiary Service (now CSC) in 1977. This penal infrastructure marketing video was created to generate support for the establishment of new federal penitentiaries amongst residents in prospective host communities at a time when there was considerable opposition to such projects due to the violence that had erupted in prisons from coast-to-coast.

Why Build? (Canadian Penitentiary Service, 1977)

Part I (watch here)

Part II (watch here)

Part III (watch here)

Part IV (watch here)

Video excerpt: "We cannot sell the idea of a penitentiary in your locality in the same way as others can use propaganda to promote the establishment of primary industries. And we do not intend to do so. We at the Canadian Penitentiary Service believe the penitentiary is a community institution - the same as a hospital or school".

Part III (watch here)

In part III of the presentation, I explained the role of penal infrastructure marketing campaigns. I also highlighted some of the main messages that are communicated by prison authorities and governments in press releases to sell prison expansion to Canadians. Drawing on unpublished records obtained using Access to Information and Freedom of Information requests, event participants were briefly introduced to the 'back stage' of penal infrastructure marketing and how officials draft messages under the banners of "green prisons", "economic stimulus" and "public safety".

Part IV (watch here)

In part IV of the presentation, I discussed different approaches that could be used by opponents of prison expansion to contest penal 'common sense' - reasoning related to penal policy and practice that appeals to commonly held assumptions or logic, yet is unsubstantiated by empirical evidence. I concluded by making the case for a punishment legislation moratorium as an alternative to prison expansion in order to provide Canadians with the space to develop community-based solutions to the community-based issues that we call 'crime'.

Following the presentation, a group discussion ensued where those present shared ideas on how Kingstonians could come together and mobilize against prison expansion. After the event, one had the sense that, at least in one corner of the country, the punishment agenda of the minority Conservative Government of Canada will not fly. Whether it is because individuals disagree with what they're doing or because of how their doing it, the Conservatives will likely not get a smooth ride in Kingston come election time despite their penal pork barreling efforts.

The Punishment Gravy Train and Penal Pork Barreling Begins Early in 2011

2011-01-10T05:10:00.035-05:00

In my 2010 Year-in-Review (read 1 January 2011 post), I noted that one of the stories I was going to watch for in 2011 was the minority Conservative Government of Canada's continued offerings of penal pork to existing pentowns and pencities, along with a side of gravy in the form of punishment bills that promise to grease the wheels of the machine, that is the federal prison system, for years to come. According to a report by journalist Rob Tripp that appeared late last night in the National Post (read article), Conservative MPs will "make announcements on eight prisons in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario and Quebec" today.

The report indicates that the new units announced today to be built on the grounds of existing federal penitentiaries operated by the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) are:

Québec Region

1) Cowansville Institution, 96 cells - 1966

(BQ MP Ouellet's riding)

2) Undisclosed institution, 50 cells

Ontario Region

1) Pittsburgh Institution, 50 cells - 1963

(Liberal MP Milliken's riding)

2) Frontenac Institution, 50 cells - 1972

(Liberal MP Milliken's riding)

3) Beaver Creek Institution, 50 cells - 1961

(Conservative MP Clement's riding)

Prairie Region

1) Edmonton Institution, unknown number of cells - 1978

(Conservative MP Uppal's riding)

2) Undisclosed institution in Saskatchewan

3) Undisclosed institution in Saskatchewan

* Federal penitentiaries in Saskatchewan where announcements could be made: Saskatchewan Penitentiary (est. 1911 / Conservative MP Hoback's riding); Riverbend Institution (est. 1962 /Conservative MP Hoback's riding); Regional Psychiatric Centre (est. 1978 / Conservative MP Trost's riding); Willow Cree Healing Lodge (Conservative MP Vellacott's riding); and Okimaw Ohci Healing Lodge (est. 1995 / Conservative MP Anderson's riding).

As this story plays out today, here are a few questions that need to be asked about the establishment of new units that result in actual answers, rather than obfuscation, so that Canadians can make sense of on-going penal policy developments.

What is Driving the Localities of New Units?

When asked about what factors were used in the selection of locations for new units in an Order of Paper Question (Q-469) tabled by Liberal Public Safety Critic Mark Holland on 19 October 2010, Public Safety Minister Vic Toews outlined the following criteria in his 6 December 2010 response: "population projections; infrastructure capacity of available institutions; workforce availability; and the availability of space within existing perimeters".

In an e-mail written by CSC Assistant Commissioner Chris Price in 2010 obtained by Rob Tripp (read 6 August 2010 post), it was noted that new units would be built "in locations where we expect the greatest increases in offender population". To date, no documentation that evaluates prospective sites for new units have been released to the public as is the practice in a few other jurisdictions (e.g. Nova Scotia, 2010). One must question why this is the case.

Why is the Minority Government of Canada Building New Units on the Grounds of Aging Penitentiaries?

In the 2007 CSC Review Panel, the authors noted that many federal penitentiaries had outlived their life-cycles and were not equipped to meet the current needs of the agency (see page 154). The report also quoted Irving Kulik, Executive Director of the Canadian Criminal Justice Association, stating that "[o]ld facilities are expensive to maintain and so when other budgetary considerations come into play, maintenance is delayed. Inevitably the organization has a huge collection of decaying buildings incorporating elements of new construction in an inefficient fashion" (ibid).

Based on these considerations and others, the panellists recommended that CSC move towards building new regional complexes (recommendation 98, page 160) and "minimize the authorization of retrofit projects" (recommendation 100, page 160). The logic behind these recommendations is that if new replacement penitentiaries are to be constructed at a later date (note: a long-term accommodation plan involving the construction of new penitentiaries is to be submitted by CSC to the federal government in March 2011), money is not invested into aging prisons that are destined to be replaced.

The Conservatives appear to be ignoring this advice as they are authorizing the construction of new units on the grounds of penitentiaries that are more than three decades old in at least five instances today. The question again is why?

Penal Pork Barreling?

As the day unfolds, the sites of new federal penitentiary units will be confirmed, many on the grounds of aging facilities located in ridings either held by the Conservatives or that will be closely contested in the upcoming federal election such as Kingston and the Islands where Liberal MP Peter Milliken will not be running.

Given that the federal government is not releasing any documentation related to the establishment of new penal infrastructure, that their decisions are in contradiction with the 'roadmap to nowhere' that is guiding their punishment agenda (read 29 September 2009 post) and that Conservative MPs, including Cabinet Ministers, have been lobbying for these projects (read 18 August 2010 post), one is left to wonder if this entire campaign is being driven by penal pork barreling.

An Investment in Public Safety?

As the Conservative penal gravy train makes stops at a town near you, we will hear a number of their tag lines. The first, is that these new units will enhance safety in our communities by keeping prisoners behind bars for longer periods of time. It should be noted, however, that most academic evidence demonstrates that incarceration has a negligible impact on the volume of complex conflicts and harms in our communities that we call 'crime'.

More importantly, in many jurisdictions where the mass incarceration has been tried, the experiment failed to reduce 'crime' and is being abandoned on mass. For instance, many American states such as Texas are gradually reducing their reliance on imprisonment because of the poor impact of incarceration on recidivism rates and exorbitant fiscal costs. Prominent Republicans such as Newt Gingrich and Pat Nolan, who once advocated for expanding prisons, are now calling for dramatic reductions in imprisonment in favour of more effective and less costly community-based alternatives (read 7 January 2011 article in the Washingston Post).

Given the proven failure of mass incarceration, it appears as though the minority Conservative Government of Canada prefers to be guided by penal 'common sense' instead of facts as they roll-out their punishment agenda. The worst part is, if the trajectory continues we will likely arrive at the same conclusion in Canada, as Gingrich and others have arrived at in the United States, decades after we have dumped billions of dollars in prisons in the midst of a fiscal crisis and declining rates of police-reported 'crime'.

While funds are being allocated to manage penitentiary overcrowding, money is being diverted from programming that prisoners may need to safely reintegrate into society (read 8 November 2010 post). As I have previously noted, in one $155.5 million wave of unit announcements this past October, the federal government invested more money in prison construction than it had spent on programming for prisoners in 2008-2009, which reportedly still accounts for 2 percent of CSC's overall budget (read 7 October 2010 post). Does this sound like a recipe that will enhance public safety?

An Exercise in "Tangible Economic Growth"?

A second message that we will likely hear today is that the construction of new federal penitentiary units will contribute to "tangible economic growth" in host communities (read 19 August 2010 post). However, no evidence will be disclosed to Canadians that support this claim.

As noted by Toews in response to an Order of Paper Question (Q-469) from Holland, no such research took place "[s]ince the announced institutional expansions will be occurring within the existing perimeters on CSC-owned land, a review of the impacts on host communities was not undertaken".

Likely realizing that he was engaging in conjecture, Toews added: "Given the level of funding that will be expanded in the communities, there will be an increase in terms of construction jobs for the community in addition to new hiring at the facility when the units are ready to be staffed. This is an important part of ensuring tangible economic growth for the communities located around CSC's institutions".

An emerging body of evidence in the United States is showing that prisons fail to have a long-term positive impact on host communities (read 12 May 2010 post). Even if we are to accept that there may be short-term economic activity associated with the establishment of new penal infrastructure, one wonders if the Government of Canada's so-called contribution to "tangible economic growth" could be used to fund projects that address the top priorities of Canadians such as new hospitals instead of dumping money into aging facilities that may be replaced by multi-billion dollar penitentiary complexes in the years ahead.

Unfortunately, Canadians living in pentowns and pencities across the country are not even being given the opportunity to make such choices. As Minister Toews noted in his 6 December 2010 Order of Paper question response to Holland, "[s]ince the announced institutional expansions will be occurring within the existing perimeters on CSC-owned land, in-depth consultation with surrounding communities was not undertaken".

As the federal government establishes the near equivalent of a new federal penitentiary in communities such as Kingston - where additions are slated for Bath Institution (192 cells), Collins Bay Institution (96 cells), Millhaven Institution (96 cells), Pittsburgh Institution (50 cells) and Frontenac Institution (50 cells) - one must ask why constituents have yet to have the opportunity to weigh in on whether or not they want basically another such institution in their backyard. Is it their contempt for the democratic process and/or bureaucratic pragmatism that prevents them from talking to relevant stakeholders? I will leave that up to you to decide.

On the Side of Victims?

Likely accompanied by a handful of frustrated victims of 'crime', who would rather see something being done - even if its in the form of new prisons - than nothing at all, the Conservatives will tout these infrastructure initiatives as being demonstrative of their 'commitment' to the victimized. However, it should be noted that victims' advocates, including Steve Sullivan - the first Ombudsman of Victims of Crime - have publicly stated that prison expansion does not meet the complex needs of victims. Take this excerpt from a 6 April 2010 interview with Sullivan on CBC's Power & Politics with Evan Solomon where victims' expenditure, including cuts to some programs (read 6 April 2010 post 1) was discussed (read 6 April 2010 post 2):

Solomon: "Now I know this is an austerity budget, but we’ve seen statistics saying that there’s more money to be spent on putting people in prison, but it looks like, even though there is a slight increase, key programs around victims are being slashed. What does that tell you?"

Sullivan: "When you’re in government it’s about making decisions and you have to make choices. So if you spend money on this area that means you can’t spend it anywhere else. In this case, we’re spending millions of more dollars on building prisons and that’s a fairly popular position... the public seems to support that. But it also means we’re not spending money elsewhere. We can’t spend that money in two places, and victims of crime, I got to tell you, the stuff we hear from victims of crime on a daily basis – the problems they have meeting their mortgages, needing counselling, not being able to assist their children who are sexually abused. Building more prisons aren’t going to address those problems. And we could put a child treatment centre in every major city in this country. We could build shelters for kids who are selling themselves on the street to come off the streets and try to live a different kind of life. The rates of Aboriginal victimization are so high... by spending so much money on prisons we’re not spending money on those key needs for victims".

Later in the interview, Sullivan stated that the current legislative push is insufficient noting:

Sullivan: "…the needs of victims of crime are very complex. They’re not easy solutions. It’s not about a tagline about building more prisons or getting tougher on criminals. Their needs are complex and they’re very in-depth and they’re long-term. I guess what I would be telling the government is, if you have a pot of money and you have a choice to build more prisons or help more victims, to help more victims".

In response to this statement, Solomon asked: “So as the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime, that’s your message to the Minister... put more money into helping victims?” Sullivan then replied: “One of my last recommendations to the government will be to take the money they’re spending on prisons to helping victims”. “Away from prisons towards victims”, the host remarked as Sullivan nodded.

What this statement reveals is that the federal government's simple calculation that more prisons meets the needs of victims is not necessarily supported by all of them or their advocates. Moreover, it is becoming clear that victims themselves are suffering directly as a result of the Conservative punishment agenda as funds that should be allocated towards bolstering the ability of the penal system to meet the complex needs they may have - information, counselling, restitution and the like - are being diverted towards building more prisons.

Moving Forward

In the year ahead, we can likely expect penal pork barreling to continue as the Conservatives scramble to absorb the influx of new prisoners resulting from their punishment agenda that aims to put more people in prison for longer periods of time with fewer chances of release into the community prior to the expiry of their sentences as has been done in the past to enhance the safe reintegration of prisoners into society.

In closing, it needs to be pointed out that a Memorandum to the Minister of Public Safety dated 1 September 2010 I obtained through an Access to Information request filed with Public Safety Canada noted that the Federal-Provincial-Territorial Cumulative Impact Working Group had yet to develop "cumulative impact costing tools" that "achieved consistency" as of June 2009.

If this continues to be the case, we must ask whether CSC's short-term accommodation plan that is currently being rolled-out based on inconsistent projections related to the Conservative punishment agenda is a responsible course of action. Given what we know about the proven failure of mass incarceration to address 'crime', a Canadian punishment legislation moratorium that will curb future prison growth ought to be seriously considered (read September 2010 article in The Monitor).

Access to Information Requests: A Guide for Canadian Prisoners

2011-01-08T22:29:00.008-05:00

By Mike Larsen

In Canada, there is a small but growing group of criminologists and sociologists conducting research on matters related to the carceral (broadly defined) using access to information (ATI) mechanisms. Federal and provincial ATI laws have been around for some time now, and they are often utilized by social scientists – mostly historians – interested in archival methods and the ‘history of the present’. What distinguishes our network of researchers is a sustained two-pronged approach to ATI mechanisms: on the one hand, we use them systematically to seek out substantive information about the ‘back stage’ of carceral and security practices, and on the other hand, we study these mechanisms themselves as sites of information gatekeeping, ‘message discipline’, and the politics of secrecy and transparency. Justin Piché’s work with Tackling the Politics of Crime and Punishment is a good example of the ATI research coming out of this group.

Criminal justice systems are engaged in pervasive and persistent practices of information production. Officials draft, revise, and disseminate policy in conjunction with political bodies. ‘Best practices’ are debated and circulated. Statistics are created, compiled, and mobilized. Situations arise, are described and defined according to the perspectives of institutions, and are thereby rendered amenable to management. Public Relations offices work to manage communications and shape public perceptions in accordance with official positions. Much of the day-to-day work of front-line personnel within the system is ‘information work’. They draft reports, take photographs and videos, fill out checklists and forms, provide expert opinions and access and modify vast databases. In so doing, they collaborate with other workers within the system, and information is exchanged, co-produced, and otherwise used. The individuals who are processed through this system – by the police, the courts, prisons, and social services – are the subjects of constant assessment, examination, explanation and evaluation. They have records, files, cases and numbers. From the perspective of the system, they are in many ways reducible to these things.

Much of this official information is not made readily available. Instead, it circulates internally within the system, and constitutes a vast textual ‘back stage’. Gaining access to government documents can offer invaluable insights into the politics, practices, and ways of thinking that govern the various components of the criminal justice system. Similarly, gaining access to personal information files can allow an individual to learn about his or her official ‘data double’ - the bundle of information that represents a person within the system.

Technically, anyone in Canada can make use of ATI mechanisms as part of a ‘quasi-constitutional’ right to request access to government records. Most of the regular requesters – journalists, lawyers, and academics - that I have encountered have learned how to navigate the complexities of Canada’s various ATI regimes through lengthy processes of trial-and-error. We are often approached for advice by community organizations, other researchers, and concerned citizens who are interested in filing ATI requests but unfamiliar with the process. Common questions relate to effective request wording, how to negotiate with government ATI analysts seeking clarifications or adjustments to the scope of a request, what sorts of documents to seek, and how to file appeals and complaints regarding delays, redactions, or denial of information.

Questions along these lines – particularly from current and former prisoners and prison justice groups working in the community – prompted me to write the Canadian Prisoner Access to Information Guide, which is available free for download from my Academia.edu site, at http://academia.edu.documents.s3.amazonaws.com/1929916/Canadian_Prisoner_Access_to_Information_Guide_Version_1.1.pdf

Contents of the Guide:
1. Introduction
2. The Canadian access regime
3. Exemptions and extensions
4. Before filing: A checklist
5. The process
6. Request wording and types of records
7. Federal and Provincial addresses and information
8. Contact Information

The purpose of the guide is to provide background information, a discussion of procedures and ‘best practices’, resources (addresses, phone numbers, and information about the federal, provincial and territorial ATI / FOI regimes) and commentary for new requesters, with a focus on prisoners interested in seeking information about carceral practices. The current version (1.0) will be revised based on feedback (which is most welcome) in what I hope will be an ongoing dialogue.

Why prepare a guide for prisoners? Two reasons. First, because while Canada’s ATI laws themselves (particularly the federal Access to Information Act) are notoriously dated and out-of-touch with the information age, the resources one needs to use them effectively tend to be located online. Figuring out how to prepare a request, where to send it, how much it costs, and what sorts of information are available or excluded without access to the Internet would be difficult, in some cases prohibitively so. Prisoners, who are generally unable to access the Internet, are at a comparative disadvantage here. The guide does not fully compensate for this, but it does provide the basics, as well as a list of numbers to call for assistance.

The second reason is because as a prison justice advocate and Co-managing Editor of the Journal of Prisoners on Prisons, I am a supporter of prison writing and prisoner research. Readers of the JPP will know that some of the most insightful and effective analysis and commentary on the socio-politics of incarceration comes from writers on the inside. JPP authors are consistently ahead of the curve when it comes to predicting the impact of policy shifts-in-progress, critiquing the logics and discourses of control and exclusion, and, of course, giving voice to the lived realities of the prison. It is my hope that this guide will be of interest and use to Canadian prisoner researchers and writers, and will allow them to further incorporate the ‘back stage texts’ of the carceral system into their analyses.

In sum, I think there’s a good argument to be made that:

1. ATI mechanisms have tremendous potential as tools for critical research on prisons, the carceral, and security and social control practices.
2. Sustained and effective use of ATI mechanisms requires both knowledge of the ATIP process and some knowledge (the more, the better) of the organizations or practices being studied.
3. Prisoners, by virtue of their position within the system, have a unique perspective on carceral practices, and have considerable experiential knowledge of the everyday routines and applied policies of the prison.

- Mike Larsen, 2011

Mike Larsen is a PhD Candidate in Sociology based at the York Centre for International and Security Studies, and the Co-Managing Editor of the Journal of Prisoners on Prisons. He can be reached at mlarsen@yorku.ca.