Conrad Black Critiques CSC's Roadmap From Within the 'Belly of the Beast'

In a National Post article titled "Canada's inhumane prison plan" (read here), Conrad Black joins others, including Michael Jackson and Graham Steward (read Literary Review of Canada article; A Flawed Compass), in rebuking the Correctional Service of Canada Review Panel release in 2007. Still trying to wrap my head around this one. Stay tuned.

The Next Wave of Prison Construction in Canada: Who Would Pay and What Are the Alternatives?

To be presented to the
Provincial-Territorial Heads of Corrections

Monday, May 31, 2010
9:30am
Château Laurier, Ottawa

[CHECK AGAINST DELIVERY]

Hi folks,
Let me begin by thanking you for the invitation to speak to your group today and to acknowledge the efforts of the members of your agencies who assisted me as I completed the data collection phase of my doctoral dissertation. While I have encountered major roadblocks at the federal level and some hurdles at the provincial-territorial level, the majority of officials who I dealt with demonstrated what accountability and transparency in government can look like.

In this presentation, I will briefly discuss my methodology and summarize the findings of my report An Overview of Prison Expansion in Canada (available upon request). Following this, I will outline some of the key challenges associated with the cumulative impacts of federal punishment legislation and propose a number of mechanisms that can be used to mitigate them. I will conclude with a short discussion on how we can build just and safe communities in Canada going forward.

Note on Method

My doctoral dissertation examines the scope and factors shaping prison construction in Canada at this time. The information I sought in order to complete this study was obtained through an online content search, informal telephone interviews, as well as Access to Information and Freedom of Information requests. Prior to tabling the final draft of my report to your group, I gave the relevant authorities an opportunity to review my findings to ensure the accuracy of the figures presented and to provide feedback. Most agencies took up the offer.

An Overview of Prison Expansion in Canada

Based on the information provided to me by governments from across the country, there are at least 22 new provincial-territorial prisons at various stages of completion. On the slide you can view the locations of these facilities (view map of new provincial-territorial prisons): 1) projects in the preliminary planning stages are highlighted in dark blue; 2) initiatives in the site selection and / or procurement stages are in red; 3) new facilities awaiting budget approval are in light blue; 4) institutions in the process of being constructed are in yellow; and 5) the prison in green is operational. According to the information disclosed, there are also 16 additions to existing facilities at various stages of completion.

The figures obtained to date reveal that there are over 6,500 new provincial-territorial prisoner beds being established across the country. When these beds come online and are filled – which they will be given current overcrowding challenges faced by most jurisdictions – I have estimated that it will cost you an additional $343.9 million in annual operating costs. The figures compiled also show that over $2.8 billion has been earmarked for the construction of these facilities to date. This total is likely to surpass the $3 billion mark once funding announcements for future prisons currently in the preliminary planning stages are made public.

Due to an information blockade enforced by officials from the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) and a Minister of Public Safety who has stated that he would “rather not share” the plans and related economic costs associated with expanding the capacity of federal penitentiaries, I am unable to report what current or future facility construction plans are being implemented by the Government of Canada. This should not be a surprise to those of you in this room who have also been stonewalled by this government. This is illustrated by the fact that the Feds did not give your agencies the opportunity to make submissions to the CSC Review Panel (2007) as well as their refusal to fully participate in the yet to be released Changing Face of Corrections Report (2009), despite the cross-jurisdictional implications associated with the findings and recommendations of these task forces.

Challenges Moving Forward

If the current prison boom is primarily being driven by persistent overcrowding associated with rising remand populations, aging facilities, space requirements associated with changing programming objectives, as well as the fact that penal institutions are increasingly being used as dumping grounds for the poor and individuals with mental health and drug addiction issues, the next wave of prison construction – should it occur – will be in response to the minority Government of Canada’s punishment agenda.

While the federal Conservatives have been busy grabbing the headlines by drafting, advertising, tabling, killing (through prorogation), re-tabling and eventually passing punishment bills, who will be left holding the bag? What effects will legislation introduced in the House of Commons such as Bill C-16, which will severely restrict the use of Conditional Sentences, have on provincial-territorial prisons? What impacts will legislation introduced in the Senate such as Bill S-10, which will require judges to hand-out mandatory minimum prison terms for trafficking marijuana, have on the prisons you manage?

The problem is that we do not know the answer to these questions, either because the minority Government of Canada has not undertaken the analysis needed to determine the cumulative impacts of their punishment agenda across jurisdictions or because they would “rather not share” those details with Canadians. This is not only an irresponsible position which could have catastrophic economic and human consequences, it is also damaging to our democratic political process which necessitates transparency in order to determine whether legislation can be implemented in a manner that positively impacts Canadian society.

While uncertainty exists, one thing that we can be sure of is that should the Conservatives punishment agenda continue provincial-territorial facilities will become more overcrowded. This will necessitate that you keep open institutions that were slated for closure because you’ve deemed outmoded to meeting your objectives and are in violation of your operational standards. The situation will also result in more individuals who have slipped through the cracks – particularly women and Aboriginals living in poverty, as well as those with mental health and substance abuse issues – ending-up behind bars because our under-resourced social infrastructure has failed them.

As a result of federal penal downloading that will further exacerbate overcrowding in your prisons you can expect heightened levels of tension and violence between prisoners, as well as between prisoners and staff. With more prisoners, your ability to provide programming will be further compromised. You will also likely find yourselves engaged in additional labour disputes with your employees, some of which may provoke strikes requiring your management to take over the day-to-day operations of your facilities. If this were to happen in your jurisdictions, many of you will be forced to place your institutions on long-term lockdown – an untenable situation considering many of your cells already hold 2, 3 or more prisoners which contravenes the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners.

Should overcrowding persist and worsen, I strongly recommend that you hire more lawyers who will be busy dealing with class-action lawsuits as well as legal challenges seeking reductions in prison terms filed by prisoners and their advocates under section 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which states “Everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment”.

Mitigating the Cumulative Impacts of
Federal Punishment Legislation

Faced with this situation, you may be considering building new multi-million dollar prisons to absorb the influx of new prisoners awaiting trial and sentencing or those serving longer sentences – two groups of prisoners which increasingly have fewer chances of release. However, there are a number of alternatives at various scales of intervention that can be mobilized which are proven to be more successful at enhancing safety in our communities at a lesser cost than imprisonment.

Prison Agencies

As Heads of Corrections, you can make changes within your prison systems that will allow you to reduce the number of individuals incarcerated in your institutions by recommitting yourselves to community-based alternatives such as parole. While this would involve changes to legislation in many jurisdictions, I would encourage you to re-evaluate and promote such measures to your Ministers if your respective agencies have not already begun this work. If implemented, you could then reallocate the money saved using community-based alternatives to additional investments in education, employment and housing programs prisoners may need to successfully reintegrate themselves into society.

Penal System

There are also various levers that can be used to address the complex harms and conflicts in our communities that we call ‘crime’ in the penal system (also known as the criminal justice system). Additional investments in social programs that prevent ‘crime’ and save taxpayers $7 in incarceration costs for every $1 spent can be made (Waller, 2006). Police officers can be encouraged to utilize greater discretion in dealing with the public. Prosecutors could alter how they manage their cases. Judges could exercise more leniency when deciding on whether or not to allow someone to post bail and make use of similar provisions during sentencing. These are not innovative ideas, as we know that such practices have been used to manage major changes that have been introduced into the penal system in the past which will continue to be used in the future.

Electoral Politics

Given the challenges most of you are currently facing, another approach to mitigate the cumulative impacts of federal punishment legislation would be to encourage your Ministers to call for a moratorium on such initiatives. This would not only be the prudent response as you do not have time or the money to build new prisons, this would also be an approach that is supported by scholarly evidence that shows that increasing our reliance on incarceration does not enhance community safety in the long-term.

Should your Ministers wish to continue to publicly support the agenda of the minority Government of Canada, the least they could do is place pressure on the Feds to examine and disclose whether or not the laws being proposed can pass the central test of legislation – implementation. This would require law makers to take the time to evaluate the cross-jurisdictional impacts related to various pieces of legislation, including their fiscal costs. It would also require disclosing findings and estimates to the public to allow for an informed debate regarding the merits of new bills.

In my view, these necessary steps in the democratic process are not currently taking place. The passage of Bill C-25 last year, which limits the amount of credit judges can give individuals for time served in remand, is the best example of tagline justice. While the “Truth in Sentencing” legislation was agreed upon by the Federal-Provincial-Territorial Ministers of Justice and Public Safety in October 2006 (see here), it appears that this is where the collaboration ended.

When the legislation was tabled in the 2nd Session of the 40th Parliament, little information concerning the implementation of Bill C-25 and related costs were divulged by the Government to Canadians. CSC Commissioner Don Head even refused to cite implementation options and estimates during committee hearings citing Cabinet confidence. Despite the fact that much was unknown about the potential impacts of this legislation the bill was passed, although in an altered form that included provisions that would allow judges to give 1.5 days credit for every day served by an individual prior to trial and / or sentencing where deemed appropriate – something the Conservatives denounced.

Now, according to a forthcoming report from the Parliamentary Budget Officer, it appears as though the provinces and territories will be picking-up the bulk of the tab for the implementation of this legislation – something many jurisdictions appeared not to expect or adequately prepare for. This is a perfect example of how not to proceed during the legislative process and will serve as an illustration of bad policy-making in university classes for years to come.

Building Just and Safe Communities

In a context of declining police-reported ‘crime’ rates and a fiscal crisis, the minority Government of Canada has been engaged in an expensive campaign that characterizes what those of you in ‘corrections’ previously considered as your successes as failures requiring immediate action in the form of punishment measures said to be in the best interest of public safety.

Faced with this, your bosses of various political stripes are abandoning reintegration because of the perception that they will get no credit for the positive aspects of their programs and all of the blame when sensational and un-representative cases hit the media who often examine ‘crime’ and punishment by looking at the distorted image reflected on fun-house mirrors rather than looking through the glass. Intimidated by or complicit in the politics of tagline justice and public safety, your Ministers are enabling the Conservative punishment agenda that if allowed to persist will cause irreparable damage to our economy, governmental institutions, communities, and particularly to those working and incarcerated in our prisons.

Perhaps by uniting and taking a collective approach in your capacity as the Provincial-Territorial Heads of Corrections you can excavate the true implications of federal legislation moving forward. From there, you could encourage your Ministers to generate the kinds of discussions needed to build just and safe communities where education, equitable workplaces, affordable housing, health care and environmental sustainability form the cornerstone.

Thank you for your time.

I look forward to your comments and any questions you may have.

Towards the Death of Reintegration in Canada? Examining the Potential Impacts of the Conservative Agenda on the Community Supervision Sector

To be presented at the
Annual General Meeting of Maison Decision House

Tuesday, May 25, 2010
7:10pm

[CHECK AGAINST DELIVERY]

Hi folks,
Thank you for inviting me to speak at your AGM. I’m grateful for the opportunity to speak about penal policy with those working in the field and the discussion that will ensue. I’m here to talk about the prospects of community-based reintegration programs in Canada at this time, and in particular, the impact that the minority Conservative Government of Canada`s punishment agenda may have on initiatives such as yours. But before I address this issue I want to briefly review how we got here.

Context

In the latter half of 2005, there were a number of high profile shootings in Toronto. The moral panic that ensued, where disparate events were presented as symptomatic of a larger trend requiring immediate intervention, was seized upon by politicians from both the left and right who touted their ‘tough on crime’ credentials during the 2006 federal election campaign. The Conservatives in particular, who had listed “tackling crime” as one of their five legislative priorities, took every opportunity to link the apparent surge in violence in our communities displayed on the front pages of our newspapers to the penal policies of previous Liberal governments.

The Conservative Administration's Punishment Agenda

While the overall volume and severity in police-reported ‘crime’ has continued to decline since 2006, a trend which began well over a decade ago, the Conservatives have been busy drafting, advertising, tabling, killing (through prorogation), and re-tabling punishment bills. In fact, of the 248 pieces of legislation tabled by the Government in the House of Commons and the Senate since 2006, 55 have focussed on making changes to the penal system (also known as the criminal justice system) – that is over 22 percent. For a more detailed breakdown of the legislation tabled by the current Government please visit my blog where you will find a copy of my talk.

39th Parliament, 1st Session:
House of Commons = C-9, C-10, C-17, C-18, C-19, C-21, C-22, C-23, C-25, C-26, C-27, C-32, C-35, C-48, C-59 (15 of 63 Government bills tabled = 23. 8 percent) / Senate = S-3 (1 of 5 Government bills tabled = 20 percent)
* 16 out of 68 Government bills tabled = 23.5 percent

39th Parliament, 2nd Session:
House of Commons = C-2, C-13, C-24, C-25, C-26, C-27, C-53 (7 of 63 Government bills tabled = 11.1 percent) / Senate = S-3 (1 of 3 Government bills tabled = 33.3 percent)
* 8 out of 68 Government bills tabled = 12.1 percent

40th Parliament, 1st Session:
House of Commons = 0 / Senate = 0
* None of the 5 Government bills tabled = 0 percent

40th Parliament, 2nd Session:
House of Commons = C-14, C-15, C-18, C-19, C-25, C-26, C-31, C-34, C-36, C-42, C-43, C-46, C-52, C-53, C-54, C-55, C-59 (17 out of 64 Government bills tabled = 26.6 percent) / Senate = S-4, S-5 (2 out of 8 Government bills tabled = 25 percent)
* 19 out of 72 Government bills tabled = 26.4 percent

40th Parliament, 3rd Session:
House of Commons = C-4, C-5, C-16, C-17, C-21, C-22, C-23 (7 out of 27 Government bills tabled = 26 percent) / Senate = S-2, S-6, S-7, S-9, S-10 (5 out of the 10 Government bills tabled = 50 percent)
* 12 out of 37 Government bills tabled = 32 perscent

In previous sessions, many of these legislative initiatives received support from one or more of the opposition parties in Parliament who have sought to avoid the ‘soft on crime’ label. As a result, some of the policies ushered in by previous Progressive Conservative and Liberal governments that propelled Canada’s reputation as an international leader in ‘corrections’ have been undone. These recent changes in penal policy are not driven by need or empirical evidence, but by an ideological addiction to incarceration and the perceived electoral gain such a stance engenders.

In the first few years of Conservative rule, the focus of their punishment agenda was on reducing the ability of judges to sentence individuals to terms of imprisonment in the community and to ensure that more individuals would be sentenced to more time behind bars going forward. While this continues, they have recently turned their attention towards crafting sentencing laws intended to restrict the use of parole and other release mechanisms for those who are incarcerated in federal penitentiaries.

An Overview of Federal Community Release Mechanisms or 'The Problem'

According to the National Parole Board (see NPB 2010a), there are four primary mechanisms that allow federal prisoners to serve a portion of their sentences in the community.

Accelerated Parole Review (APR) allows individuals who are “serving a first penitentiary sentence for a non-violent offence” or “a drug offence for which the judge did not set parole eligibility at one-half of the sentence” to be “released on full parole after they have served one-third of their sentence”. It should be noted that the NPB can block the release of a prisoner should they determine that the individual is likely to commit “an offence involving violence before the end of the sentence” (NPB, 2009b).

Day Parole is a mechanism that allows federal prisoners “to participate in community-based activities to prepare for release on full parole or statutory release”. It should be noted that these individuals “must return nightly to a community based residential facility or halfway house unless otherwise authorized by the National Parole Board” (NPB 2009a).

Full Parole “is granted at the discretion of the National Parole Board after a thorough risk assessment” and allows federally sentenced prisoners “to live in the community in his/her own accommodation”. It should be noted that these individuals are “subject to strict conditions” that provide them “with an opportunity to demonstrate that they can be a law-abiding member of society” (ibid).

Statutory Release is another mechanism that allows federal prisoners – life and indeterminately sentenced individuals excluded – who have not been granted parole previously to be released on parole. In these cases, prisoners “are supervised in the community and will be returned to prison if they are believed to present an undue risk to public safety” (ibid). It should also be noted that the NPB can detain a prisoner until the expiry of their sentence if they determine the individual is at risk of committing “an offence causing death or serious harm to another person; a sexual offence involving a child; or a serious drug offence” (ibid).

CSC's 'Transformation' Agenda or 'The Remedy'

For proponents of deterrence, ‘just deserts’ and incapacitation – all empirically unsubstantiated approaches to incarceration if community safety is the primary objective being pursued – existing earned parole mechanisms, and their eligibility timelines in particular, are indicative of a crisis in our federal penitentiary system. This position is one rooted in mythology.

The best myths about existing parole mechanisms in Canada can be found in the CSC Review Panel Report (2007). One such example of distortion is that federal prisoners are not accountable for how they progress through their ‘correctional’ plans or their actions. This assertion borders on fiction.

As it stands, should prisoners not follow the agenda CSC has set out for them they may still be eligible for parole, but it is highly unlikely that they will be released prior to Statutory Release. This means that they most likely will not be able to get out of the penitentiary until they have served two-thirds of their sentences, which certainly should be considered a grave penalty for not being ‘accountable’ in the eyes of CSC officials.

Another gripe of the CSC Review Panel was that the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (CCRA) specifies that prisoners are to be deprived of their liberty using the least restrictive measures. For the authors, this provision has resulted in “an imbalance... that places the onus on CSC to justify why the least restrictive measures shouldn’t be used, rather than on the offenders to justify why they should have access to privileges based upon their performance under their correctional plans. The Panel believes that this imbalance is detrimental to offender responsibility and accountability”. This statement ignores the fact that in practice federal prisoners have to justify almost every move to authorities in order to build a case for their cascading through the system.

More worrisome is the suggestion made in the Panel’s assertion that the state and its officials should not have to justify when and how it deprives its citizens of their liberty, a position that used to only be acceptable in countries ruled by authoritarian regimes and dictators. The state should never be given a carte blanche – not on our streets, not in our courts and not in our prison systems. Wouldn’t it be rich for our government to preach the virtues of accountability and obeying the rule of law, and then to not ensure that its agencies and employees are accountable and follow the rule of law themselves?

To address the perceived insufficiencies associated with existing community release mechanisms, the CSC Review Panel recommended the adoption of “earned parole”. Gone would be APR and Statutory Release. Day and Full Parole would also be more difficult to obtain should it be determined that prisoners do not have employment in place or excellent job prospects upon release. They would also not be released in cases where ‘correctional’ plans have not been followed in a system where the specified programs are said to be readily available to prisoners when we know this is not the case.

Why We Ought to Abandon the Proposed Vintage of 'Earned Parole'

There are a number of reasons why we ought to abandon the vintage of ‘earned parole’ envisioned by the CSC Review Panel and our Government.

We Already Have Earned Parole

While police associations and a number of victims’ groups argue that our penitentiary system is a revolving door, where prisoners are released back into our communities without having lifted a finger, they are being disingenuous at best.

No matter the form of release, in the vast majority of cases prisoners are not released if they are considered to pose a significant risk to public safety. Prisoners who wish to obtain Day or Full Parole earn it by demonstrating that they would not pose a risk by exhibiting ‘good behaviour’ according to the rules of the penitentiary system, by participating in their programs and so on. Those on Statutory Release earn their stays in the community by exhibiting ‘good conduct’ based on standards determined by the NPB while serving the remainder of their sentences amongst us.

Community release is never a given, which is illustrated by the number of prisoners who have their parole revoked for actions that are considered to be normal if carried out by ‘law-abiding’ citizens. Being eligible for parole means just that. If we are to incarcerate individuals, why would we remove some of the key incentives that promote the very behaviours amongst their captives that prison officials’ desire?

Our Current Community Release Mechanisms Are Proven to be More Successful at Reintegrating Prisoners than Longer Terms of Imprisonment

Another reason to not move towards an even more restrictive system of earned parole that will result in prisoners serving longer portions of their sentences behind bars is that individuals who spend less time in prison are more likely to successfully reintegrate themselves into society than those who serve more time in prison.

Consider these statistics:

According to 2008-2009 figures produced by Public Safety Canada (PSC 2009), 71 percent of those on Accelerated Parole did not “return to prison for a breach of conditions or for a new offence” (p. 94). While 21 percent did return to prison for breaches, only 7.1 percent of those on accelerated parole committed a non-violent offence and a minuscule 0.2 percent committed a violent offence (ibid).

Of those on Day or Full Parole, 76.3 percent did not commit an offence or breach their conditions. While 16.2 percent did return to prison for breaches, only 5.9 percent of those on Day or Full Parole committed a non-violent offence and another 1.7 percent committed a violent offence (ibid).

For individuals who enter our communities on Statutory Release, 60.3 percent did not commit an offence or breach their conditions. Of these prisoners, only 8.4 percent committed a non-violent offence and another 1.3 percent committed a violent offence (ibid, p. 96). While it has been argued that this mechanism should be abolished given that 30 percent of those on Statutory Release breach their conditions, perhaps it is worth examining the nature of these breaches and whether the system could benefit from more discretion when deciding who we send back into our penitentiaries.

The figures above indicate that there room for improvement, yes, but it is not through increasing our reliance on criminalization and imprisonment that we will enhance safety in our communities. Given the successes of our existing release mechanisms and the fact that the “rate of conviction for violent offences while under community supervision has declined since 1999-00” (ibid, p. 97), there is certainly an argument to be made for preserving the status quo when the alternative is unnecessarily more repressive and will likely generate less results. Add the average annual cost of $24,825 for incarcerating individuals in the community (ibid, p. 30) to the discussion – which is close to 25% of the average cost of incarcerating a male prisoner in a penitentiary and less than 15% of the cost of incarcerating a female prisoner in a federal institution – and this argument becomes that much more compelling.

The Proposals, If Implemented, Will Erode Community-Based Resources

The combination of the Conservative punishment agenda and CSC’s ‘transformation’, which both involve plans to restrict community release, is likely to force the closure of many community-based reintegration programs in the years ahead. This was the case in Ontario when the province moved towards a system of earned parole under a Conservative Government and a number of halfway houses, including Maison Decision House, were closed.

In combination with other federal punishment initiatives including mandatory minimum prison terms which seek to limit the ability of judges to sentence individuals to terms of imprisonment in the community, the Government of Canada is slowly dismantling community-based resources that are proven to be less costly and more effective at enhancing a prisoner’s ability to successfully reintegrate into society than imprisonment (see Canadian Criminal Justice Association, 2006).

Increasing Our Reliance on Incarceration
is Not Only Ineffective, It is Costly

By its own admission, the CSC Review Panel stated that if implemented, their brand of ‘earned parole’ “could affect the size of the incarcerated population because of the time served” (p. 118). Indeed, eliminating mechanisms such as APR and Statutory Release would lead to increases in the federal penitentiary system where 9.7 percent of its prisoners were already double-bunked as of February 2009 according to CSC.

While Minister Toews has stated that CSC will be increasing its use of double-bunking in the years ahead to absorb the influx of new prisoners serving longer terms in penitentiaries with fewer chances of being released in the community prior to the expiry of their of sentences, he failed to recognize the existence of Commissioner’s Directive 550 and Canada’s 1975 commitment to the United Nations' Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoner. Both of these documents recognize that single-bunking is the most appropriate approach to imprisonment from a humane and ‘correctional’ perspective. The practice of double-bunking is also known to put the personal safety of prisoners and prison staff at significant risk. If the Conservatives were concerned about public safety, one must ask why they would take such a stance that contradicts national and international standards, as well as experience.

Stuffing more people into our penitentiaries will also exacerbate a situation where, according to Howard Sapers – the Correctional Investigator of Canada – there are already long waiting lists for programming in federal penitentiaries that prisoners may need to safely reintegrate into society. The Office of the Correctional Investigator (OCI) has also repeatedly denounced the fact that only 2 percent of CSC’s budget is dedicated to programming (see OCI 2009, page 23). This being the case, what is the logic behind adding more prisoners to an already overburdened system? It’s certainly not a concern for public safety that is driving this bus into walls of brick and mortar.

If talk of effectiveness is not convincing, consider the costs of increasing our reliance on imprisonment. According to PSC’s (2009) own figures, the average cost of incarcerating a male prisoner per year in 2007-2008 was $99,205 (p. 30). That same year, PSC estimates that the average annual cost of incarcerating a female prisoner was $182,506 (ibid). Not included in these figures are the billions of dollars we will likely have to spend to warehouse new federal prisoners should the current legislative trajectory continue.

The 'Independent' Expert Chair

A fifth item we should consider as our Government and CSC seek to implement the recommendations of the so-called Roadmap to Public Safety is who is behind this ‘independent’ report. The chair of the influential document, which is currently driving federal penal policy, is Rob Sampson who was once the Minister responsible for privatization and later became the Minister of Correctional Services under Mike Harris. Of particular relevance to this discussion, is the fact that Ontario ‘corrections’ moved to a system of earned remission, not dissimilar from what is being proposed federally at this time, during the period the Conservatives were in provincial office from 1995 to 2003. In light of this, one must ask to what degree the findings of this 50-day ‘review’ panel were pre-ordained to serve as a catalyst for the types of changes the federal Conservatives have wanted to make to our penitentiary system since their time in opposition as the Reform Party.

Canada at a Crossroads:
Building Prisons or Building Safe Communities?

As a student entering high school in Ontario in 1995, I recall how John Snobelen, then Minister of Education in the province, proclaimed that the Conservatives were going to reform the public education system by “creating a useful crisis”. Naomi Klein (2007) argues that Snobelen and his successors created this crisis by tabling legislative measures and entering labour negotiations with teachers’ with the purpose of laying the groundwork for the privatization of education in the province. While publicly-funded schools remain, the legacy of this ‘crisis’ for students in the form of larger class sizes with a greater focus on mathematics and sciences to the detriment of arts and social science courses continues to be felt.

While ‘reform’ of government institutions can be slow, it is often through the construction and mobilization of crisis by various stakeholders – concerned citizens, those working with public bodies, politicians and the like – that measures that allow for the perpetuation and reproduction of social structures are implemented. The minority Conservative Government of Canada has manufactured a crisis in the penal system that has opened the door to a cycle of retrograde reforms that until recently would have been dismissed by those responsible for crafting and implementing penal policy, including those of you in this room.

Today, you find yourselves implementing a punishment agenda that characterizes what you previously considered as your successes – pardons being one example – as failures requiring immediate correction in the form of measures that are said to be in the best interest of public safety. In your capacity as CSC employees, parole officers and practitioners in the community, it is necessary that you speak out against the Conservative punishment agenda that is a roadmap to nowhere except cuts in social expenditures that provide individuals with the tools to avoid criminalization and higher taxes to cover the costs of increasing our reliance on incarceration.

Canada is at a crossroads and the choice before us is clear: either we continue our march down the disastrous path towards mass incarceration – a costly and ineffective response to the complex harms and conflicts we call ‘crime’, or we renew our commitment to building communities by addressing the issues we face in the community – a less costly and effective approach to achieving public safety.

While there are some who privately oppose the Conservative legislative push, choosing to defer making comment until the day that a new government that will be receptive to our message takes their place, if we fail to mount an effective opposition now this day will likely never come, no matter the political party in office. Now is not the time for silence – the stakes are far too great.

Thank you for your time.

Show Me The Money: Provinces and Territories Want Feds to Cover the Costs of the Punishment Agenda

Last month, I noted that many of the provinces and territories would likely ask for funds to cover the costs related to the federal Conservative Government's punishment agenda (see 29 April 2010 post). Since that time, officials from jurisdictions such as Ontario, Manitoba (see 1 May 2010 post) and Nunavut (see 4 May 2010 post) have noted that they will face significant challenges should rapid increases in their prison populations occur as a result of legislation which seeks to put more people behind bars for longer periods of time.

In a story published in the Globe and Mail this week (read here), reporter Gloria Galloway noted that "[s]ix out of the 10 provinces surveyed... said they are worried that new tough-on-crime laws will impose a major financial burden. The remaining four said they simply do not have enough information to determine the costs they are facing".

One of the primary reasons that the provinces and territories do not know what the potential impact that the federal punishment bills will have on their prison systems is because the minority Government of Canada - which was elected on a platform of accountability and transparency - refuses to disclose the figures. As noted by Galloway, Public Safety Minister Vic Toews has said that he would "rather not share" these numbers with Canadians.

While such comments have not been readily challenged in the past, a wave of recent editorials and stories in the media have been putting pressure on the Conservatives to release the costs associated with their ideological addiction to incarceration. In the Ottawa Citizen, the headline reads "Watchdogs, critics decry lack of financial information from Tories" (read 9 May 2010 story). In the Globe and Mail it is argued that it is "[t]ime for Mr. Toews to share" (read 19 May 2010 editorial). The Vancouver Sun has asked Canadians "Can you spare $10 billion?" (read 5 May 2010 editorial), in response to preliminary figures emerging from the forthcoming Parliamentary Budget Officer's report on the implementation of Bill C-25.

At some point the Conservatives are going to have to disclose the costs of their punishment bills, figures that need to be provided so that Canadians can have all the information needed to decide whether or not they want to support their penal policy agenda. It is time for Harper and his flock to show some courage and to stop hiding behind certain victims who are only listened to when they are willing to be used as stalking horses for state repression. The fact that this Government is projected to spend $2.46 billion on prisons versus $16.3 million for victims in the year ahead is an illustration of the Conservative Party's so-called commitment to victims (read 6 April 2010 post). This is just one example among many which reveal that the Conservatives aren't in it for victims or safety in our communities, they're in it for themselves.

'Crime' and Punishment Bills Represent 32% of Government Legislation Tabled This Parliamentary Session

In the context of a fiscal crisis, the minority Government of Canada is engaged in the politics of distraction. In the wake of another prorogation and persistently embroiled in scandal, the Conservatives have been looking for a way to make Canadians forget about their distain for democratic institutions, their harpocritical stance on government accountability and transparency, as well as the fact that they had a large part in plunging Canada into a deficit with ill-advised spending and tax cuts.

In a 25 January 2008 speech (read here), Stephen Harper stated that "In times of economic uncertainty, what Canadians need most is strong, certain, steady leadership that's on their side. It's what Canada deserves. It's what Canadians demand." And how were these words translated into action?

In the midst of a fiscal crisis, the Conservatives have focussed a significant amount of their time and resources drafting, advertising, tabling, killing (through prorogation), and re-tabling punishment bills at a time when 'crime' rates have been declining. In response to his critics who mobilize evidence and call on the Government to abandon their punishment agenda, Harper has warned Canadians to not be fooled by those who would dare raise research findings to inform penal policy:

Some try to pacify Canadians with statistics. Your personal experiences and impressions are wrong, they say; crime is really not a problem. These apologists remind me of the scene from the Wizard of Oz when the wizard says, "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain". But Canadians can see behind the curtain. They know there's a problem.

Indeed, there is a problem. The problem is that this Government is fixated on punishment when there are many other issues that require immediate attention. In the 3rd Session of the 40th Parliament alone the Conservatives have tabled 27 pieces of legislation in the House of Commons (not including Private Members bills), 7 of which are 'crime' and / or punishment bills (see C-4; C-5; C-16; C-17; C-21; C-22; C-23) - that is 26 percent. They have also tabled 10 bills in the Senate (not including Private Members bills), 5 of which are 'crime' and / or punishment bills (see S-2; S-6; S-7; S-9; S-10) - that is 50 percent. Add these figures together and the Government itself has introduced a total of 37 bills, 12 of which are 'crime' and / or punishment bills - that is over 32 percent.

In light of these developments, this is what Stephen Harper should have told us in January 2008:

Some, including me and my caucus will try to incite fear amongst Canadians, because we know that fear is a powerful tool that opens policy windows to pass ill-advised legislation. We will tell you that the research undertaken by academics is wrong and that the figures compiled by Statistics Canada are manipulated by our opponents while citing our own statistics which are nowhere to be found. "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain". Crime is everywhere, trust us.

The current minority Government of Canada has an ideological addiction to incarceration. Despite the known harms - economic, political and social - they turn to punishment in their time of need. The Conservative legislative agenda does not serve Canadians, it serves themselves.

Fiscally irresponsible and socially corrosive, our self-styled 'law-and-order' politicians need help. We need opposition parties to focus on the issues of the day and not the scandals in the newspapers. We need them to develop and fully articulate alternative legislative agendas so that Canadians can provide Conservatives with the treatment they so desperately need - to vote them out of office.

Opposition Parties Indicate They Will Not Give the Conservatives a Free Ride on Punishment Bills Moving Forward

During the 2006 federal election campaign all federalist political parties touted their 'tough on crime' credentials in the shadow of the so-called summer of the gun. Since that time, a number of bills tabled by the minority Conservative Government of Canada that were not killed by two prorogations of Parliament (December 2008 and December 2009) received enough support from at least one opposition party to become law. In a political climate where any punishment bill put forward by the Conservatives was depicted as action on 'crime' in the media, representatives from other political parties appeared unwilling to oppose the Government's legislative agenda despite the overwhelming evidence that it would not enhance public safety in the long-term. An explanation: they did not want to be called 'soft on crime'.

In recent months, the penal policy debate in the media and in Parliament appears to have shifted as information regarding the economic costs of the Conservative punishment agenda has emerged. In a context of declining 'crime' rates and a fiscal crisis, members of the opposition have questionned the logic of passing punishment bills that will result in more prisoners serving longer sentences requiring the construction of billions of dollars worth of prisons (see Davies, 11 May 2010; Tibbetts, 19 May 2010).

While a far cry from the Federal Punishment Legislation Moratorium that I proposed (read Background Information and download the Sign-up Form), at least there now appears to be a climate where penal policy proposals can be debated rather than rubber stamped by the commentariat and our political representatives.

The Big House is Not on Fire, At Least Not Yet: Baffin Correctional Centre Poses a Safety Risk says Ex-Fire Marshall

Reports from the Canadian Press (read here) and Globe and Mail (read here) reported that the staff and prisoners at the Baffin Correctional Centre (BCC) in Iqaluit, Nunavut are at risk of injury or death should a large fire ever break-out at the facility according to documents turned over to the RCMP by Tony Noakes Jr., the former Fire Marshall in the territory.

Noakes, who had inspected a jail in Kandahar noted that if he were a Nunavut prisoners that "I would much rather be there than here". This is the latest in a series of critiques of the conditions at BCC (see 4 May 2010 post). Of course, these revelations would not be news to the Government of Nunavut as demonstrated by the existence of a 2007-2008 Capital Project Substantiation Sheet I obtained through an Access to Information Request filed with the territory's Department of Justice (#1029-20JUS-0206) which noted the following risks should the BCC not be replaced:

Costs will increase as more and more men are sent to the Northwest Territories and South. At some point it will not be possible to operate the BCC for anything other than as a remand centre. Remandees are a fast-growing group. On average there are 30 remandees / day in custody in Nunavut held in space designed for 12.

Severe overcrowding is dangerous. While our men in custody have been well-behaved so far, experience in other jurisdictions shows that crowding, limited programs, and limited outlets for normal human energy can lead to catastrophic results. Riots, property damage, fire, injury and worse have all occured in circumstances like this.

If people were hurt in such an event, Nunavut's potential for liability would be very high. If BCC were closed as a result of a major incident, our costs and the operational problems to the criminal justice system would be extraordinary.

The high density that goes along with overcrowding leads to another difficulty. Both then in custody and our staff are more likely to be exposed to disease in such an environment. Many, if not most, of the men in custody have been exposed to tuberculosis: every year some are found to be active. The greater the density, the more likely it is that this and other diseases will be passed on.

In addition, there is the possibility of legal challenge to present conditions of incarceration.

[...]

This was in 2007-2008. While it is the case that a new 46-bed men's prison in the process of being built in Rankin Inlet, a February 2008 Project Brief for this facility obtained through an Access to Information request filed with the territory's Department of Community and Government Services (#1029-20-CGS0613) notes that this new institution will not be enough to relieve pressure from the overcrowded BCC:

...Correctional Healing Centre is sized to meet the needs of the Kivalliq Region and will allow the Department of Justice, Corrections Services Division to ease some of the pressure currently being placed on their present infrastructure, especially the Baffin Correctional Centre in Iqaluit. While it will not solve all of the overcrowding issues faced by BCC and Corrections Services Division it will certainly ease some of the strain on the system and allow the Department of Justice time to plan and develop programs for future correctional facilities for the territory, as well as improve existing infrastructure.

With the federal Conservative punishment agenda now in full swing, which includes a proposal to severely restrict the use of conditional release, as well as the potential of disaster at BCC looming, the Government of Nunavut appears to be running out of time and options to address the capacity crisis in its prisons. With their safety in the workplace and living quarters threatened, hopefully BCC prison staff and prisoners will not be the one's to pay - with their lives.

A Prison in my Backyard: The Need for an Alternative

Since the Conservatives began their punishment agenda, a few municipalities from across the country have been lining-up to become the next pencity. In economically depressed communities where citizens are deserting their homes such as Pontiac County, Québec (read CBC News, 30 October 2007; see also Boivin, 2007) and in towns like Valemount, British Columbia (watch Valemount Community TV, Episode 28 - 30 April 2010 and Episode 29 - 7 May 2010) in pursuit of a better life, the prospect of having a federal penitentiary in one's backyard is being sold by proponents as a path to economic salvation and community survival.

I do not fault concerned citizens from communities such as these who have experienced economic hardship and related social problems, often as a result of neo-liberal policies which led to local declines in industrial production, for seeking ways to sustain themselves. However, communities which seek to become profiteers of human misery by playing host to warehouses where we incarcerate prisoners need to be aware of a growing body of literature in the United States which examines the impacts of new prisons on their host communities.

THE NEED TO MOVE BEYOND COMMON SENSE

For years, critical scholars have been studying prison expansion in the United States in a time of declining 'crime' rates (see Dyer, 2000). The contribution of these studies is to show how in times of economic turmoil, elected officials often turn to the construction of new prisons as a form of penal patronage to generate political capital - a.k.a. electoral support (Christie, 2000). Presented with such 'opportunities', localities once opposed to prisons in their backyards now welcome and even lobby for these facilities in order to read the stated benefits associated with such projects (Greene, 2007).

While critiquing the role of capital interests and economic motives as a means to undermine the legitimacy of the American prison boom serves a powerful denunciatory purpose, descriptively it falls short. The problem with critical scholarship which posits that prison construction provides opportunities for economic development is that it retains most of the assumptions shared by proponents of imprisonment as an approach to economic development (see Stanley, 1978; Travis and Sheridan, 1983, 1986; Hawes, 1985; Abrams and Lyons, 1987; Houk, 1987; Rogers and Haimes, 1987; Caillier and Versteeg, 1988; Carlson, 1990, 1992; Krause, 1992; Sechrest, 1992, Schichor, 1992). In my view, earlier work in both bodies of literature did not conduct adequate research to verify whether such projects actually contribute to the long-term economic renewal and growth of host communities. To address this gap in knowledge, a number of major studies have been undertaken, yielding surprising results.

IMPACTS OF NEW PRISONS ON PENCITIES

Employment

When a prison arrives in a community it is presumed that locals will be first in line to work within the facility (see Che, 2005; Gilmore, 2007; Gotham and Haubert, 2007). However, the reality is that “[t]he majority of public prison jobs… do not go to people already living in the community” as they do not possess the necessary education levels and experience (Huling, 2002: 201). In a tight labour market, local residents are also in stiff competition with others from neighbouring communities for whatever jobs are unclaimed by existing prison staff in state and federal systems who have seniority (ibid). Construction jobs are also mostly taken by those living outside the host community who are employed by contracting firms (Mosher et al., 2007: 94). Locals are thus left with lower skilled and lower paying jobs, negating “a net increase in employment” (Hooks et al., 2004: 42).

If anything, the employment crunch is heightened in new prison towns due to the use of prison labour for local infrastructure and landscaping projects, deepening poverty (Huling, 2002: 204). This is made visible by the finding that overall earnings, per capita income and employment growth in both urban and rural counties in the United States with established or new prisons stagnated, while surprisingly, commensurable counties without prisons enjoy higher rates of growth in each of these categories between 1969 and 1994 (Hooks et al., 2004; Mosher et al., 2007).

Another promise associated with the arrival of new prisons is that such projects will have a spill-over effect for local businesses that are thought to be best positioned to provide goods and services to these institutions along with their employees, resulting in increased tax revenues for local authorities. However, local businesses rarely have the capacity to fill the larger and specialized orders of prisons (Hooks et al., 2004: 42). Coupled with the arrival of mega-chains who also presume growth will ensue as a result of new prisons, local businesses who reinvest capital into their localities tend to disappear, as the Walmart’s and McDonald’s of the world come to take their place and invest profits made locally elsewhere (Huling, 2002: 202).

Local Housing

In the lead-up to a new prison, residential housing developers often begin construction on homes and apartment buildings, expecting locals to be able to afford better housing and for prison workers to move to these areas. However, as most prison jobs are not distributed locally and more often than not prison “workers are more likely to live in neighboring communities (up to fifty miles away) that offer more amenities but have no prison” (Mosher et al., 2007: 95), the short-term land and rental increases give way to a reduction in land values and the maintenance of higher rent levels, impacting poorer members of communities (Huling, 2002: 203). While proponents of new prisons point to the population growth associated with such projects, it is not new workers who contribute to the phenomenon, but rather the arrival of prisoners “that are reversing long-standing trends of population loss in rural counties” (ibid: 210; see also Hunter and Wagner, 2007).

Municipal Services and Infrastructure

Municipal services and infrastructure are also negatively impacted economic revitalization campaigns in which new prisons are the centrepiece. By diverting infrastructure dollars towards making a community prison ready – offering tax breaks, providing land and other services to prison authorities to outbid their opponents – local governments are often left with little to offer to attract other prospective employers to the area (Mosher et al., 2007: 94). This phenomenon is described by Hooks et al. (2004: 54) as the “opportunity costs” associated with building new prisons in one’s community. As a result, “local officials in towns with one prison often opt or are forced to lobby for more prisons, creating a “one-company town” scenario over time” (Huling, 2002: 206). In many jurisdictions, the penal system is also adversely impacted as local police and judiciary divert significant resources to deal with ‘crimes’ within prisons (ibid: 204).

Quality of Life

New prisons are largely sold on the idea that they generate significant economic benefits to jurisdictions where they are located, ultimately improving the quality of living in these areas. However, there is plenty of evidence that the opposite occurs due to high job turnover and low workforce morale (Huling, 2002). For instance, in Ionia, Michigan – a county home to many prisons – “there’s no shortage of anecdotal evidence of increased rates of divorce, alcoholism and substance abuse, suicide, health problems, family violence, and other crimes” (ibid: 207). This flies in the face of the feel good stories sold to residents regarding the impact of prisons on communities.

IMPACTS OF THE ESTABLISHMENT OF RURAL PRISONS
ON THOSE LEFT BEHIND

In addition to studies that highlight the limits of local economic development through prison construction, there is a growing body of literature which focuses on the collateral consequences – “intended or unintended” (Mauer and Chesney-Lind, 2002: 1) – of mass incarceration as a policy response to ‘crime’. While often not the specific focus of studies on the collateral consequences of imprisonment, many of the findings produced make visible the adverse impacts of the forced migration of prisoners to isolated prisons on the communities where they are from, their families and their loved ones.

Breaking-up Families

The impacts of imprisonment on families are wide ranging (Braman, 2002). Beyond the stigma, social isolation, economic stresses and emotional troubles experienced by those with a loved one in prisons (see Mauer, 1999; Braman, 2002; Richie, 2002), prison location serves as an additional barrier to men, women and children wishing to maintain contact.

In the United States, most facilities are located in rural areas, often at great distances from the communities where prisoners are from (Richie, 2002). The facilities are often not accessible by public transportation, offer limited visiting hours and long wait times, “making visiting logistically and economically difficult if not impossible” (ibid: 139). Institutional regulations which on occasion prohibit the entry of visitors and procedures such as cavity searches, add to the undesirability of prison visits (Braman, 2002: 120). These indignities often lead families and loved ones to limit or abandon institutional visitation altogether. For instance, the National Council on Crime and Delinquency “found that over half the women inmates had never received a visit from their children since their admission to prison. The most common reason for this was the distance from the children’s home to the prison, more than 100 miles on average” (Mauer, 1999: 186).

While a small number of prison authorities and community groups have developed teleconferencing programs to connect children with parents behind bars in rural institutions (see Bernstein, 2003), for the vast majority of family members and loved ones wishing to maintain contact with prisoners, expensive collect phone calls (Jackson, 2007) and correspondence through mail remain the only options (Braman, 2002: 120). On occasion, maintaining contact is further complicated when prisoners are moved unannounced to them to another facility, a practice commonly known as “diesel therapy” (Friedman, 2007: 269). As a result, it often takes months for prisoners to reconnect with their support networks (Beck et al., 2008).

Disintegrating Communities

In the United States, the forced separation of the incarcerated from their families and loved ones disproportionately impacts low-income and minorities as they are more likely to find themselves entangled in the web of the penal system (Mauer, 1999: 183). While some families do overcome these challenges, they represent “the exception rather than the rule” (Clear, 2002: 193). As a result, “marriage and coparenting are far less common and single-headed households are far more common in areas where incarceration rates are high” (Braman, 2002: 126-127). Moreover, when prisoners – most being men – are forcibly removed from their communities, “gender ratios are skewed” in ways that encourage the remaining men to “enter into relationships with multiple women, and encouraging women to enter into relationships with men who are already attached” (ibid: 123). By altering relationship norms amongst all those impacted, potential for family disruption, violence and ‘crime’ is increased (Mauer, 1999: 184).

The restructuring of families and other kin networks in the manners described above through imprisonment has a pronounced impact on some communities. Clear (2002: 181) notes that penal policy operates under the assumption that the removal of “people from their communities subtracts only (or primarily) the problems they represented for their places, and thereby leaves those places better”. Put in other words, it is assumed that those in conflict with the law do not make any positive contributions to their communities. Clear argues that such a viewpoint is not only unsupported by scholarly evidence, but that in there increasing support for the argument that communities with high rates of incarceration are more susceptible to ‘crime’ due to the impacts of incarceration and prisoner re-entry into the community on apparatuses of informal social control (ibid: 183). These informal institutions, including families and other social networks, set normative standards for conduct and provide mechanisms outside the State to address the range of problems present in communities. Clear concludes that when individuals are imprisoned on mass it “has a destabilizing effect on community life, so that the most basic underpinnings of informal social control are damaged. This, in turn, reproduces the very dynamics that sustain crime” (ibid: 193).

THE NEED FOR AN ALTERNATIVE

Based on the experience of the United States, we know that increasing our reliance on imprisonment does not enhance public safety in the long-term. There is also evidence to suggest that building a prison in one's backyard is not a viable economic renewal strategy and causes a great deal of damage to prison towns and communities where prisoners are from. And what do we do with this evidence? It appears as though we are veering towards a path where we are bound to repeat the very worst examples of economic and penal policy that have failed south of the border.

The fact that communities in Canada are turning to imprisonment as a way to address 'crime', while other towns and cities are turning to imprisonment to address local economic crises should be cause for concern. The establishment of new buildings made of brick and mortar as an approach to resolving complex issues in our communities should be seen as nothing more than a sign that we need to get creative, to reinvigorate debate and generate new ideas that will propell our country into future prosperity rather than the cynical darkness of a penal state which incarcerates an increasing number of prisoners for longer periods of time without benefit.

Many jurisdictions in the United States are now abandonning their punishment agendas because they have come to the realization that they deserve better.

We too, in Canada, deserve better.

It is time to challenge ourselves and our representatives to deliver viable approaches to addressing the economic, political and social issues we are facing to build a country where freedom, not the ball-and-chain, reigns.

REFERENCES

Abrams, Kathleen S. and Lyons, William (1987). “Impact of Correctional Facilities on Land Values and Public Safety”, National Institute of Corrections, Report No. R-84-P-02, North Miami: Florida Atlantic University / Florida International University Joint Center for Environmental and Urban Problems.

Bernstein, Nell (2003). “Relocation Blues”,
in T. Herivel and P. Wright (eds.), Prison Nation: The Warehousing of America’s Poor, New York: Routledge, pp. 106-110.

Beck, Victoria S., Richards, Stephen C. and Elrod, Preston (2008) "Prison Visits: On the Outside Looking In", Journal of Prisoners on Prisons, 17(1): 91-105.

Boivin, J. (2007). Projet de pénitencier fédéral dans la MRC Pontiac, Gatineau : Gouvernement du Québec.

Braman, Donald (2002). “Families and Incarceration”,
in M. Mauer and M. Chesney-Lind (eds.), Invisible Punishment: The Collateral Consequences of Mass Imprisonment, New York: The New Press, pp. 117-135.

Caillier, Mark W. and Versteed, Karyn D. (1988). Preliminary Conclusions: Correctional Institutions’ Impact on the City of Salem Police Services, Salem (OR): Operational Support Section – Salem Police Department.

Carlson, Katherine A. (1992). “Doing Good and Looking Bad: A Case Study of Prison/Community Relations”, Crime & Delinquency, 38(1): 56-69.

Carlson, Katherine A. (1990). “Prison Escapes and Community Consequences: Results of a Case Study”, Federal Probation, 44: 36-42.

Chambers, Marion (1989). “Learning to Live With LULUs”,
Environmental and Urban Issues, 16: 17-22.

Che, Deborah (2005). “Constructing a Prison in the Forest: Conflicts Over Nature, Paradise, and Identity”, Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 95(4): 809-831.

Christie, Nils (2000). Crime Control as Industry: Towards Gulags, Western Style (third edition), New York: Routledge.

Clear, Todd R. (2002). “The Problem with “Addition by Subtraction”: The Prison-Crime Relationship in Low-Income Communities”, in M. Mauer and M. Chesney-Lind (eds.), Invisible Punishment: The Collateral Consequences of Mass Imprisonment, New York: The New Press, pp. 181-193.

Druar, Laura, Carrington, Peter J. and Goyder, John (1998). “Community reactions to the new Prison for Women in Kitchener”, Forum on Corrections Research, 10(2).

Dyer, J. (2000). The Perpetual Prisoner Machine – How America Profits from Crime, Oxford: Westview Press.

Friedmann, Alex (2007). “For-Profit Transportation: Taking Prisoners and the Public for a Ride”, in T. Herivel and P. Wright (eds.), Prison Profiteers: Who Makes Money from Mass Incarceration, New York: The New Press, pp. 265-284.

Galloway, Katie and Kutchins, Po (2006). Prison Town USA,
Lock Pictures.

Gilmore, Ruth W. (2007). Golden Gulag: Prisons, Surplus, Crisis, and Opposition in Globalizing California, Berkeley: University of California Press.

Glasmeier, Amy K. and Farrigan, Tracey (2007). “The Economic Impacts of the Prison Development Boom on Persistently Poor Rural Places”, International Regional Science Review, 30(3): 274-299.

Gonnerman, Jennifer (2007). “Million-Dollar Blocks: The Neighborhood Costs of America’s Prison Boom”, in T. Herivel and P. Wright (eds.), Prison Profiteers: Who Makes Money from Mass Incarceration, New York: The New Press, pp. 27-35.

Gotham, Kevin F. and Haubert, Jeannie (2007). “Neoliberal Revitalization: Prison Building, Casinos, and Tourism in Louisiana”, in T.A. Gibson and M. Lowes (ed.), Urban Communication: Production, Text, Context, Lanham (MD): Rowman & Littlefield, pp. 25-39.

Hawes, Jerry A. (1985). Cities With Prisons: Do They Have Higher or Lower Crime Rates?, A special report to Senator Robert Presley, Chair, Joint Committee on Prison Construction and Operations, Sacramento: California State Senate Office of Research.

Hayman, Stephanie (2007). Imprisoning Our Sisters: The New Federal Women’s Prisons in Canada, Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.

Hooks, Gregory, Mosher, Clayton, Rotolo, Thomas and Lobao, Linda (2004). “The Prison Industry: Carceral Expansion and Employment in U.S. Counties, 1969-1994”, Social Science Quaterly, 85(1): 37-57.

Houk, Wade B. (1987). Acquiring New Prison Sites: The Federal Experience, Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Justice.

Huling, Tracy (2002). “Building a Prison Economy in Rural America”, in M. Mauer and M. Chesney-Lind (eds.), Invisible Punishment: The Collateral Consequences of Mass Imprisonment, New York: The New Press, pp. 197-213.

Jackson, Steven J. (2007). “Mapping the Telephone Prison Industry”, in T. Herivel and P. Wright (eds.), Prison Profiteers: Who Makes Money from Mass Incarceration, New York: The New Press, pp. 235-249.

Krause, Jerrald D. (1992). “The Effects of Prison Siting Practices on Community Status Arrangements: A Framework Applied to the Siting of California State Prisons”, Crime & Delinquency, 38(1): 27-55.

McShane, Marilyn D., Williams III, Frank P. and Wagoner, Carl P. (1992). “Prison Impact Studies: Some Comments on Methodological Rigour”, Crime & Delinquency, 38(1): 105-120.

Mosher, Clayton, Hooks, Gregory and Wood, Peter B. (2007). “Don’t Build It Here: The Hype Versus the Reality of Prisons and Local Employment”, in T. Herivel and P. Wright (eds.), Prison Profiteers: Who Makes Money from Mass Incarceration, New York: The New Press, pp. 90-97.

National union of public and general employees (NUPGE) (2006). “Tories crack down on crime but where will they find the jails?”, retrieved on September 25, 2006.

Popper, Frank J. (1981). “Siting LULUs”,
Planning, April: 12-15.

Pranis, Kevin (2007). “Doing Borrowed Time: The High Cost of Backdoor Prison Finance”, in T. Herivel and P. Wright (eds.), Prison Profiteers: Who Makes Money from Mass Incarceration, New York: The New Press, pp. 36-51.

Pressman, Jeffrey L. and Wildavsky, Aaron (1973). Implementation: How Great Expectations in Washington are Dashed in Oakland, Berkley: University of California Press.

Richie, Beth E. (2002). “The Social Impact of Mass Incarceration on Women”, in M. Mauer and M. Chesney-Lind (eds.), Invisible Punishment: The Collateral Consequences of Mass Imprisonment, New York: The New Press, pp. 136-149.

Rogers, George O. and Haimes, Marshall (1987). “Local Impact of a Low-Security Federal Correctional Institution”, Federal Probation, 53: 28-33.

Sechrest, Dale K. (1992). “Locating Prisons: Open Versus Closed Approaches”, Crime & Delinquency, 38(1): 88-104.

Shichor, David (1992). “Myths and Realities in Prison Siting”,
Crime & Delinquency, 38(1): 70-87.

Silas, Faye A. (1984). “Not in My Neighborhood”,
LawScope – American Bar Association Journal, 70: 27-29.

Stanley, Charles (1978). The Impact of Prison Proximity on Property Values in Green Bay and Waupun, Wisconsin, Milwaukee: Wisconsin Division of Corrections and Bureau of Facilities Management.

Travis, Kevin M. and Sheridan, Francis J. (1986). “New York State Site Problems? Not Here!”, Corrections Today, 48: 12.

Travis, Kevin M. and Sheridan, Francis J. (1983). “Community Involvement in Prison Siting”, Corrections Today, 45: 14-15.

Open Letter: Join the Canadian Punishment Legislation Moratorium Campaign

Download the one-page moratorium sign-up form

To my fellow Canadians and others elsewhere in the world:

My name is Justin Piché and I'm a PhD Candidate in Sociology at Carleton University. Part of my doctoral dissertation examines the scope of and factors shaping prison expansion in Canada at this time.

When I left high school a decade ago to begin my studies at the University of Ottawa, I enrolled in Criminology to learn about 'crime' and the 'justice' system in what was to be a stepping-stone to law school to become a Crown Attorney that would put the 'bad guys' behind bars. At the time, that's where I thought those deemed criminal belonged in the name of protecting society.

Years of study and stints working within the bureaucratic arm of the system have led me to adopt a penal minimalist stance where I see incarceration as a measure to be reserved for the very few amongst us and the very few amongst the current prison population that pose an actual imminent danger to our communities.

This is certainly not the position of the current minority Government of Canada. The Conservatives are working towards transforming incarceration into a first response to a wide variety of complex conflicts and harms in our communities, including mental health and addiction issues, as well as poverty.

I do not expect everyone to agree with my stance on imprisonment. Everyone is entitled to have their own position. However, this does not mean that the circulation of information and debate on this issue should stop. Canada is, after all, a democratic country. Given that we are all impacted by penal policies in one way or another, a serious national discussion on the collateral consequences of the Conservative punishment agenda and whether or not it is the appropriate response to what we have labelled 'crime' is needed moving forward.

Here are some things to consider:

We know that studies by Statistics Canada have shown that the overall volume of crime reported to the police has been steadily declining since 1991 and that the overall severity of crime reported to the police has been declining since at least the late 1990s.

We know that increasing the use of imprisonment has failed to enhance public safety in locations that have shifted towards a mass incarceration model. Moreover, prison expenditure has outpaced funding for social programs such as post-secondary education in many of these jurisdictions such as California.

We know that Steve Sullivan, the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime, recently argued that building more prisons will not address the complex and pressing needs of victims, as well as their families, who are left behind by the federal government's punishment agenda.

We know that increasing our reliance on imprisonment is not an effective approach to addressing the needs that those in conflict with the law may have, and that more effective and less costly alternatives are available. It should also be noted that incarceration impacts the families and loved one's of many prisoners, an issue which is often forgotten when penal policies are being debated.

We know that imprisonment does not meet the needs of other members of our communities. You don't build community by removing individuals from them without addressing the roots of social problems in our neighbourhoods.

We know that at least 22 new provincial-territorial prisons and 15 additions to existing facilities are being established from coast-to-coast-to-coast, adding 6,590 prisoner beds at a price tag of $2.82 billion in construction related costs and another estimated $349 million for annual operating costs associated with incarcerating individuals in these new beds. I would like to tell about construction initiatives being undertaken by the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) at this time but they have stonewalled every single one of my informal information and access to information requests citing "Cabinet confidence"and other reasons to not disclose the records I have sought.

We know that the overall budget of the federal penitentiary system has risen 54 percent to $2.46 billion since the Liberals tabled their last budget in 2005-2006 and is set to increase by 95.9 percent to $3.128 billion by 2012-2013. CSC's budget for capital expenditures, which includes facility construction costs, has also increased by 138.4 percent to $329.4 million since the Conservatives have taken office and is set to rise by 237.8 percent to $466.9 million by 2012-2013. Where other federal government departments are trimming staff, the number of CSC full-time equivalent employees has risen by 11.9 percent to 16,587 since the Conservatives have taken office and is set to increase by 39.6 percent to 20,706 by 2012-2013.

We know that estimates from the forthcoming Parliamentary Budget Office report peg the construction bill for implementing one piece of federal punishment legislation, Bill C-25 (abolishment of the 2-for-1 credit for time served in remand), at between $6 billion and $10 billion. Reports suggest that most of the costs will be incurred by our already overburdened provincial and territorial prisons.

We know that many of our prisons are already full with prisoners who are often double and triple bunked in cells designed for one person. Existing institutions, along with new facilities already underway, will be unable to absorb the influx of additional prisoners serving longer sentences without further compromising Canada's 1975 commitment to the United Nations' Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners which states "9(1) Where sleeping accommodation is in individual cells or rooms, each prisoner shall occupy by night a cell or room by himself [or herself]".

We know that it takes years to plan new prisons and that if the Conservative punishment agenda continues the influx of more prisoners serving longer sentences in facilities will put the personal safety of prisoners and prison staff at further risk than at present.

We know that Howard Sapers, the Correctional Investigator of Canada, has stated that there are already long waiting lists for programming in federal penitentiaries that prisoners may need to safely reintegrate into society. The situation is worse at the provincial-territorial level where often very few programs are offered to prisoners. This is not a recipe for community safety.

We know that Canada, as well as its provinces and territories, are in the midst of an economic crisis where most jurisdictions are looking to make cuts to government programs to balance the books and thus cannot afford to take on large expenditures such as building new multi-million dollar prisons. Based on the experience of other countries, we also know that increasing our reliance on imprisonment either leads to cuts to social programming, higher taxes, or both.

This is what we know.

As noted by my colleague Mike Larsen (York University) the other day, we have to stop thinking and talking about incarceration as a successful policy option. We have to stop letting politicians get away with selling punishment legislation that will result in further overcrowding in our prisons and the construction of new institutions as evidence of their commitment to public safety. Prison is, at best, an unimaginative after-the-fact response to conflict that does little to prevent victimization or repair communities. The incarceration of an individual should be seen as an indication that we have failed to effectively implement more meaningful and inclusive interventions. A wholesale expansion in our ability and inclination to incarcerate should be seen as nothing less than an indictment of our approach to conflict resolution and community safety.

The tap in our kitchen is running. The sink is already overflowing with water. We should not run to the local hardware store to buy a bigger sink. We need to begin by shutting off the tap and then discuss how fast to pull the plug to lower the level of water in our sink to avoid making a mess of our kitchen floor.

The economic and human costs flowing from the path on which we find ourselves are just becoming visible to the Canadian public. We need a moratorium on federal punishment legislation in Canada.

In the interim, we need to encourage our elected and non-elected officials at the provincial-territorial and federal levels to enhance our commitment to prevention efforts such as education, employment, housing and other social programs proven to reduce crime.

We need to encourage politicians to make robust investments aimed at meeting the needs of all stakeholders impacted by conflicts and harms in our communities that are currently under-served by the minority Government of Canada's punishment agenda.

Please join this campaign that seeks to put a stop to Canadian punishment legislation that will further exacerbate the capacity crisis in our prisons likely with little impact on crime or safety in our communities, and at a high fiscal cost.

Take care,

Justin

Access Denied: Changing Face of Corrections Report Remains Hidden From Canadians

In March 2010, I made the following Right to Information (RTI) request to the Government of New Brunswick and Access to Information (FOI) request to the Government of Yukon:

At a November 2007 meeting of the Federal, Provincial and Territorial Ministers Responsible for Justice and Public Safety, "the ministers agreed to a specific study... to determine how... changes are affecting services across Canada and whether a new approach in corrections is needed". This study was dubbed the "Changing Face of Corrections". At the September 2008 FPT meeting, the ministers present agreed to the terms of reference for the stuidy and "urged the federal government to consider the results of the study prior to implementing any recommendations of the federal study [Report of the CSC Review Panel] that have cross-jurisdictional impacts". In a January 2009 FPT meeting, a copy of the report on the Changing Face of Corrections was circulated and discussed.

I am requesting a copy of this report on the Changing Face of Corrections.

As a researcher working in a publicly-funded institution (Carleton University) conducting research on other publicly-funded institutions (prisons), one would not be foolish to think that the halls of government would be open to academics. However, as I and many other Canadian scholars have reported previously, this is often not the case (read 14 April 2o10 post). Instead, what we encounter most is obstruction.

In response to my RTI request, the New Brunswick Minister of Justice and Consumer Affairs Kelly Lamrock stated the following in a letter dated 26 April 2010:

In response to your request, the record holdings of both the Department of Justice and Consumer Affairs and the Office of the Attorney General were searched. As a result of that search, it was determined that the requested report is not kept or filed in either department. I am not aware of any other New Brunswick government department in which the report might be kept or filed.

Given Lamrock's response, I'm puzzled how a report that was drafted with the participation of all provinces and territories, and circulated at a 2009 Federal-Provincial-Territorial (FPT) meeting of the ministers responsible for justice and public safety, would not be held by the public bodies mentionned in this Minister's letter. While I'm grateful that my $5 cheque for processing my request was not cashed and returned to me, I would much rather have the report I sought in hand.

Mike Larsen (York University) has argued that there is a severe dearth in accountability mechanisms, including access to information provisions, that allow citizens to know substantive details about multi-agency initiatives within a particular government (see National Security Accountability and the Right to Know, Prism Magazine). What the case above reveals is that large gaps exist in what individuals can know about the operations of their governments when multiple jurisdictions are involved in a given project. As the Changing Face of Corrections report does not belong to one provincial-territorial government, but 13, a shell game can ensue where officials can claim to not know where such a document is housed or claim that they are not the proprietors of the record in question. Given the importance of FPT meetings, where numerous policies with cross-jurisdictional implications are established, this black hole where taxpayer funded information generation can ostensibly remain invisible is a phenomenon that should not exist in a democratic country such as Canada.

The story, however, does not end there.

In response to my ATI request, the Government of Yukon's Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Office cited the following reasons for refusing to disclose the Changing Face of Corrections report in a letter dated 3 May 2010:

Legal advice

18 A public body may refuse to disclose to an applicant a record
(a) that is subject to solicitor client privilege

Disclosure harmful to intergovernmental relations or negotiations

20(1) A Public body may refuse to disclose information to an applicant if the disclosure could reasonably be expected to
(a) harm the conduct by the Government of the Yukon of relations between that Government and any of the following or their agencies
(i) the Government of Canada or a province or territory of Canada

20(2) A public body must not disclose information referred to in subsection (1) without the consent of the Executive Council.

Again stonewalled for dubious reasons which appear to be motivated by a desire for political cover for the Yukon's provincial-territorial and federal counterparts, I again raise the following question (see 29 April 2010 post):

Why hasn't the FPT group released the Changing Face of Corrections report which sought, in part, to determine "how the provinces / territories and federal government can best collaborate to find synergies around program delivery and infrastructure planning" to the public?

Isn't this and other related questions part of a discussion Canadians should be able to participate in, or at the very least, know something about?

Today, the answer is no.
Access denied.
Canadians do not have the right to know.

Exarcerbating the Capacity Crisis: Add Nunavut to the List of Jurisdictions Unable to Absorb an Influx of New Prisoners Serving Longer Sentences

Add Nunavut to the growing list of provinces and territories, including Ontario and Manitoba, that have stated that they are unable to absorb an influx of new prisoners serving longer sentences.

In a story published in Nunatsiaq Online (read here), reporter Gabriel Zarate noted that the prison population at the Baffin Correctional Centre (BCC) in Iqaluit as of the third week of April was 102 prisoners in a facility "originally built to house only 48 people". In response, the Government of Nunavut has added a third bunk to each of the two existing bunk-beds per cell, which allowed the territory to expand the official capacity of the facility to 72 beds. However, the demand for prison beds continues to outstrip the supply.

According to Zarate, the situation has forced staff to "lay mattresses on the floor of each cell to house one more inmate", which "means that cells originally designed to hold four inmates may now hold up to seven". The BCC has also erected cots in the gym to make the best out of an untenable situation.

With new punishment bills being tabled in the House of Commons at a ferocious pace, that if passed will exacerbate the capacity crisis being experienced from coast-to-coast-to-coast, a moratorium on this kind of 'justice' legislation is needed now. We cannot build community and enhance public safety by removing individuals from our villages and cities for longer periods of time.

This approach will not only bankrupt Canadian government coffers, it will likely lead to more violence inside prison walls which will, in the long-term, spill-over into our backyards. This is not a path we can afford to take - the economic and human costs are far too great.

The Need for a Moratorium on Punishment Legislation

On 22 April 2010, the minority Conservative Government of Canada announced that it would reintroduce a bill to abolish conditional sentences (see DOJ news release). The proposed bill would end 'house arrest' for a number of 'offenses' (see DOJ backgrounder). A report today in the Toronto Star (read story) states that Justice Minister Rob Nicholson plans to also reintroduce manditory-minimum sentences which include provisions such as "a mandatory six-month sentence for people convicted of growing as few as five pot plants", as well as other bills for auto-theft and 'white-collar crime' in the coming weeks.

Clearly undeterred by the evidence of the failure of imprisonment to enhance safety in our communities, the fiscal costs of prison expansion as well as concern emerging from the provinces and territories about how they will be able to cope with the influx of new prisoners serving longer sentences (read today's story in the Globe and Mail), the Conservatives are poised to continue their punishment agenda.

Given that we have a minority Parliament, there is an opportunity to say "no", to stop feeding the Conservative Party's addiction to incarceration, and to adopt policies that address conflicts and harms in our neighbourhoods. Justice is not a tagline. Justice is not a cement structure. To equate justice to imprisonment is to provide a one-size-fits-all big box approach to a series of smaller and complex social issues that will only erode remains of what we call community in Canada.

Most of our prisons are already full. We will not be able to build new prisons fast enough to meet the demands of the legislation that is currently before Parliament. We need a moratorium on punishment legislation. Full stop. If history has taught us anything it is that if we do not take this path we will likely be the generation that presides over levels of violence and rioting inside our prisons not seen since the 1970s, which will inevitably spill over into our communities.