Highlights: Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies and the John Howard Society of Canada news conference
DATE/DATE:
September 20th, 2011 - 10:30 a.m.
LOCATION/ENDROIT:
Charles Lynch Room, House of Commons, Parliament Hill, Ottawa, Ontario
PRINCIPALS/PRINCIPAUX:
Catherine Latimer, John Howard Society of Canada
Kim Pate, Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies
Marie-Eve Sylvestre, Canadian Civil Liberties Association
Jeannette Corbiere Lavell, Native Women’s Association
SUBJECT/SUJET:
The Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies and the John Howard Society of Canada held a news conference to provide comments on why they believe that the federal government should not be permitted to enact their proposed Omnibus Crime Bill until the provinces, territories and the federal government:
1) have a clear understanding of the price tag attached to each proposed legislative or policy reform that is disclosed to the public; and
2) can assure Parliament that the expected increase in costs can be accommodated without exceeding 100% capacity of the correctional facilities and without increasing our current deficit.
Catherine Latimer: I’m Catherine Latimer and I’m speaking for the John Howard Society of Canada which is a charitable community-based organization with 63 affiliates across the country, all dedicated to the effective fair and humane responses to the causes and consequences of crime.
We have a lot of concerns with the Omnibus Bill. We question its effectiveness and we question a number of its provisions. We think it will endanger corrections workers and inmates and compromise rights and not promote good corrections and undermine principles of justice and have a disproportionately harsh impact on some of the most vulnerable members of our society.
Today I really wanted to just draw to your attention four major points of concern.
1- One is that the corrections system in Canada is already in crisis. Provincial, territorial and parts of the federal system are so crowded that they may well be violating section 12 charter protections against cruel and unusual punishment. ...
2- We’re concerned about the cost of the Omnibus bill. These costs will be borne by the provinces and by taxpayers across the country and we believe that those need to be fully assessed and disclosed. We’re in a fragile economy. When many taxpayers are carrying record levels of personal debt, and will be asked to endure significant reductions in public spending, and I think many Canadians are asking whether, in the face of reducing crime rates, expending huge resources on prison expansion is really in the best interests of Canadians.
3- We’re concerned about the evidentiary base upon which this piece of legislation is based. Democratic governance must engage the public support by offering rational policies that respect the intelligence of the Canadian public. Blindly following failed American crime policies is not in the interests of Canadians. We think that there are excellent cost benefit analyses out there and we think there are excellent evaluations of crime policies and we think that we should benefit from those and call on the government to disclose the information that they’re relying on to identify the problems and the notion that there will be solutions to this and –
4- We think that the Parliament needs to have adequate time to look at this bill. We think that 130-day time frame is probably artificial and inadequate, to fully invite public participation, hear from experts and hear from the provinces about the impact of this proposed legislation on them and we would very much like to be given adequate time for the rights issues, the cost issues and the substantive issues to be addressed before this bill is passed.
Kim Pate: ...We’re being encouraged to believe that the Omnibus Bill is necessary for public safety. The fact that the government fell on contempt of Parliament just at the moment when they were refusing to provide all the costs of the bills that were then being proposed is I think very important for all of us to remember. The fact that only 39% of Canadians voted for this government and ... we don’t know if they actually voted for the crime agenda, the fact that most of the bills were seen as the garbage bills, that weren’t seen as sufficiently important to be put forth in the last election, all should cause us significant concern....
In Canada, women’s imprisonment has long been an issue in terms of the overcrowding. We’re now seeing gymnasiums being used, we’re seeing massive overcrowding starting in the provincial jails and we’re in a situation where Canadians will be having to see their resources sucked into a prison system and we wonder if Canadians were given the choice to cut pensions, to cut healthcare, to eliminate child care, to cut services to victims, not enhance services to victims, to in fact make our communities more inhospitable to those who are most marginalized, particularly those who are poor, particularly women, particularly those who are racialized....
The bills that passed just before the House rose alone have resulted, we’re told by Corrections, in an almost one third increase in the number of women in federal penitentiaries. What will this mean in terms of not only social costs, human costs, but fiscal costs with no – underline no - appreciable increase if any in public safety. ...
In addition, we’re concerned that [this bill] will also potentially be rammed through Parliament without being sent to committee. That kind of abrogation of fiduciary responsibility to the Canadian public is untenable. It breaches the entire democratic process. It challenges the whole notion of what in fact a bill is supposed to be about.
We would propose that if the bill passes in that process, there be an amendment put in place immediately and that amendment should read that until every province, territory and the federal government has signed off, that they can afford the costs, the real costs of what this bill would be, that it cannot be enacted.
Marie-Eve Sylvestre: ... The CCLA is a national organization promoting respect for human rights and civil liberties. We share the concern expressed by the John Howard Society and the Elizabeth Fry Societies with respect to the Omnibus Crime Bill and in particular, I would like to emphasize its potentially overwhelming yet undocumented costs, the fact that most if not all measures are not backed by evidence that they will meet their objective, that is decrease or increase public safety and give greater importance to victims voice and concerns. In fact, we know that it will actually produce the opposite based on the literature, but also based on the American experience.
Second, the concern about the impact of the bill on prison overcrowding and the violations of most fundamental human rights and civil liberties, the democratic deficit and the fact that so many measures affecting so broadly the criminal justice system won’t be provided enough opportunity for taxpayers to know what are the implications for human rights, the costs, but also to make an informed decision about those measures.
In the past CCLA has also expressed specific concerns with respect to mandatory minimum sentences and those are measures that now are likely to be reintroduced in the Omnibus Bill. In particular we’ve emphasized and opposed mandatory minimum sentences because they were unjust, restricting judicial discretion and not providing enough opportunity for judges to adapt sentences to particular circumstances of the offense.
Jeannette Corbiere Lavell: ... I’m here to I guess express our concern with the direction that this bill will take us. We as Aboriginal people are only 3.8% of the total Canadian population, but I’ve been advised that the women who are actually within all these institutions, our women and that’s the first nations, Metis and Inuit women, are 34% of the total women who are in these institutions. So you can see the grave concern that we have. And of those 34%, over 90% have been subject to sexual violence and to all kinds of other violence, domestic and otherwise, and when you think about the services that our women are able to access, even once they leave these institutions, there’s nothing available for them. So they end up on the streets and then once again back into that same vicious circle.... You magnify what the rest of the Canadian people are experiencing, magnify it by 80, 90% and that’s what we as Aboriginal women, people I would say, have to deal with.
Question: I was wondering if there’s one specific segment that causes you more trouble than the others?
Catherine Latimer: I think almost all of it causes concern...Key of the concerns is this use of mandatory minimum penalties which always creates an injustice for those at the low end of the penalty scale because it deprives the judges from taking a look at the circumstances of an offense and determining whether a lesser penalty is really appropriate, and proportionate to the seriousness of the offense and that’s is really going to significantly – particularly mandatory minimum penalties in drug areas and some of the other areas, are really going to drive up the volume, particularly in the provincial correctional facilities of the number of people who are serving time. That’s a very serious concern.
Question: Can you clarify why it would endanger workers?
Catherine Latimer: Yes... this an issue that has been raised by many correctional unions across the country, ... worrying concern about the effect of overcrowding on the safety of their members and more recently, [the] union in Ontario has responded that there are serious health and safety issues associated with the overcrowding for them.
Kim Pate: And I would add that we’re in the midst of the inquest into Ashley Smith we also have concerns about ...the number of people with mental health issues who will likely be in with the evisceration of more healthcare programs, particularly mental health and the likelihood that we could see an increase in terms of risk to prisoners as well, because the easiest way to house them is to put them in isolation.
Question: Le projet de loi s’appelle « Projet de loi pour rendre nos rues et nos communautés plus sures », est-ce que vous voyez quelque chose dans ce projet de loi-là qui va rendre la société en général plus sécuritaire ou si c’est juste un slogan?
Marie-Eve Sylvestre: … Est-ce que ce projet de loi-là va faire en sorte d’augmenter la sécurité du public? En fait, on a toutes les raisons de croire que ça va être plutôt le contraire. … On sait que l’impact premier de ce projet de loi-là sera sur des communautés pauvres, racialisées, des minorités et pas nécessairement sur les criminels dangereux puisqu’on a déjà les outils dans le système de justice criminelle présentement pour s’attaquer et pour intervenir auprès des criminels dangereux. C’est pas des crimes violents qu’on a dans notre système de justice criminelle présentement.
Question :Les peines minimales, ça risque pas d’être un « deterrent » comme on dit en anglais?
Marie-Eve Sylvestre: C’est-à-dire que non. Nous, on croit qu’au contraire, les peines minimales auront pas d’effet dissuasif sur les infractions puisque pour avoir un effet dissuasif, d’abord il faut savoir qu’il y a une peine minimale pour l’infraction qu’on est en train de commettre, ce qui est pas nécessairement le cas. Les gens ne consultent pas le code criminel comme livre de chevet, mais aussi, on pense qu’au contraire, le fait que le système de justice criminelle ne puisse pas répondre aux situations particulières de chacun des individus et que ces peines-là imposées vont être injustes d’un mur à l’autre, vont faire en sorte que ça aura aucun effet dissuasif. Au contraire, on va penser qu’on peut pas prendre en considération les cas particuliers.
Kim Pate: ... If in fact we needed this for public safety, you would know it. Are you really feeling most fearful of bands of Indigenous women, about to accost you when you walk out of here? Is that your risk of public safety? That is the single largest group [in prisons]. Are you really concerned about people with significant mental health issues who are on the street, begging, vagrant? That’s who you’re at risk from? Or are you concerned that your mother won’t have a pension? You won’t have child care, your children won’t be able to go to university. ...
We’re being encouraged to believe we need this for public safety. It’s a farce. If in fact it was true as I’ve said repeatedly, then the United States would be the safest place in the world and states would not be going bankrupt.
Question: How critical is it, as we try to understand the ramifications of this legislation, that the government release a full costing.
Kim Pate: I think it is absolutely critical. That’s why we’re proposing the amendment we’re proposing, that we know it likely is not part of the bill. We know that the bills have been rammed through on – with this smoke and mirrors and the rhetoric of public safety.
Of course, people want to be safe. I have children. Those of us who live in the community don’t want it to be unsafe for anybody, least of all those close and near and dear to us, and yet the reality is these measures will not increase public safety. Nowhere has increased incarceration and decreases services for people who are most likely to be victimized increased public safety... Yet we’re being told “Ignore the evidence, ignore all this information, ignore the experts ... ignore even the people who have come through the system and have been rehabilitated and have gone on to contribute to communities and we’re told to ignore all of that and just believe the gut reaction that somehow we’ll be safer by putting more people in jail....
Question: I have a question for the Native Women’s Association. For the – for the mandatory minimums for drug crimes, I know that in the past, it’s been amended to talk about residential treatment facilities because there’s – you can get off of the mandatory minimum if you – if you agree to be treated in a drug court or have treatment, but there are no treatment facilities in any of the territories or any of the remote locations. So what kind of – what would you say to the government about that aspect of the legislation?
Jeannette Corbiere Lavell: ... We have very few facilities within our communities, within the first nations and the ones that are established are not recognized by Corrections Canada. So the women who are in these institutions are not able to go to these community safe houses or places where they should be able to access culturally appropriate services to assist them, to integrate back into the community. So it is a big dilemma.
Catherine Latimer: [This point] applies to all of those who may have addiction issues, who are not located in those communities that have drug courts and other things and there’s only a few drug courts and it will lead to a disproportionately harsh impact on the non-urbanites who may have an equal problem, who do not get access to those treatment programs. So Aboriginal communities, northern communities, remote communities, it will have a disproportionately negative impact on those populations.
Kim Pate: We have a homelessness strategy in this country. You probably know it, it’s called jail. Jails are not treatment centres, jails are not the shelters that battered women need. Jails are not the places that we want to be sending people to deal with addictions. Yet if you walk into any prison in this country right now, that’s predominantly who you’ll see there, people who are already struggling with all kinds of other issues. 91% of the indigenous women in federal prisons have histories of abuse.
Question: You talked about the fact that people are suffering from mental health, at the same time, the provinces, do they not have to do their part to offer more service in terms of mental health, because they’re responsible for the healthcare system?
Kim Pate: Well, certainly one way is not to have laws that are going to overburden the provincial and territory prison systems and criminal justice systems .... The courts will be filled up, the prisons will be filled up and the resources will not be prioritized for healthcare, social services, education, addiction issues, child care, anything that would assist people in not being victimized. ...
Question: Is there a charter challenge of this Omnibus Bill possibly?
Kim Pate: It’s possible. One of the challenges though will be how it will be covered and how people will think about what’s happening.
I think it’s incumbent on all of us to raise huge concern, massive concern that it may get rammed through, with no public discussion, with no debate, with no understanding of the cost, fiscal and social costs, with no understanding of how it will actually create more people who will be victimized, with no understanding of any of those issues and it will just become law and then we’ll be dealing with, in ten years, 20 years, trying to retreat, having court actions about the cruel and unusual punishment, more inquests like Ashley Smiths. I mean surely that’s not the way to spend our money, to try and correct something that we could actually avoid right now.