Cost of Tory crime agenda ballooning amidst government secrecy
FEDERAL POLITICS / Expensive 'tough on crime' bills don't work, say critics
Dale Smith / National / Friday, April 30, 2010
Share |

(Landing image © Thinkstock)
The Parliamentary Budget Officer is due to release a report on the costs associated with one of the cornerstone bills of the Conservative government's "tough on crime" agenda, and the preliminary figures are staggering. A reported price tag of $7 to $10 billion is expected for the cost of passing Bill C-25 alone, which eliminated the two-for-one credit for time served.

Liberal public safety critic Mark Holland, who requested the report, expects it to arrive on his desk before the weekend, and he will then release it publicly next week.

"I think it's fair to say the numbers are going to be jaw dropping," Holland says. "The minister has responded by finally releasing some numbers of his own, but [he is] saying that the total cost of their agenda is something that he knows but won't share with anybody, which I find very curious. Why would he not share it? I would think that something could not be more basic or essential than knowing how much the bills are going to cost before we vote on them."

The NDP's public safety critic, Don Davies, pointed out that Public Safety Minister Vic Toews previously stated the total costs of C-25 would cost a mere $90 million for increased jail time, but he has just confirmed that it will cost the federal treasury closer to $2 billion dollars, with billions more downloaded to the provinces.

"That's one bill — there are others coming up," Davies says. "The dividing line is two years — any sentence that's two years or more will fall to the federal government, less to the provinces.

"If you start adding up the total costs together, it's going to be absolutely staggering and could literally crush provinces," Holland says. "They deserve that information before anything's adopted."

Justin Piché, a PhD candidate at Carleton University, studies the scope and factors contributing to prison expansion. He points out that Bill C-25 will have no effect on the stated goals of moving the accused through the criminal justice system faster.

According to Piché, the two-for-one credit for time served evolved because prisoners being held in remand centres were considered to be doing harder time, given the overcrowding and poor conditions in most centres. While the government rationale was that too many criminals were extending their stay in remand in order to significantly reduce their final sentences, a study by Michael Weinrath of the University of Winnipeg found otherwise — that most defendants preferred a swift trial or resolution.

"This bill, although it purports to try and tackle those wait times, doesn't really accomplish that goal because it doesn't focus on addressing wait times," Piché says.

The government has also said that it will employ double bunking prisoners in order to increase the capacity of federal institutions — something that violates the Correctional Services of Canada's Commissioner's Directive 550, and contravenes Section 9 (1) of the United Nations' Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, of which Canada is a signatory.

"We made a commitment to eliminate it," Holland says of the practice. "We've been steadily year-over-year decreasing that, and to turn back to double bunking is very concerning when we know that it leads to higher rates of reoffending, and, at the end of the day, a less safe community because these people are going to be released eventually — over 90 percent of people who are incarcerated are let go.

"The question is, who do we want walking out that door — somebody who's been subjected to health concerns and an environment not conducive to rehabilitation, or somebody who's healthy and ready to reintegrate?"

Piché adds that there are already long lists for programming in federal penitentiaries, and adding more prisoners to an already crowded system will make the situation more untenable.

"We may find ourselves in a situation where more and more prisoners have not taken the programming that's been prescribed to them by correctional authorities by the end of their sentences," Piché says. "This in no way increases public safety. If anything, it undermines it."

"That's the main problem with the Conservative crime bills — not only that they're going to cost billions of dollars, but they're not going to work," Davies says. "They're not going to make Canadians safer. It's a double-barrelled shotgun being aimed at Canadians."




Share |


Reader Comments


 
What about gay bashers?
Does Xtra favour early release for convicted gay bashers? In an April 30, 2010 news story on this site, Xtra reports that Michael Kandola was sentenced to 17 months in prison for a vicious, homophobic assault on Jordan Smith in Vancouver’s gay village. The assault was a hate crime that left Smith with a broken jaw. Since Kandola has already served 5 months, his remaining term in prison is 12 months. After reading the above article, it would appear that Xtra would like Kandola to get "two-for-one credit" for time served so he can get out of prison sooner.
Sam, Toronto Ontario
05/01/10 9:54 AM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Huh?
What's it got to do with Xtra? Kandola served 2/1/4 months in jail. That gets doubled because of the two-for-one credit because the crime happened before the law was changed. So, he gets 17 months minus five which is 12. I don't see it as having anything to do with Xtra. It's the law.
Biff, Burnaby BC
05/01/10 11:15 AM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Whose agenda does Xtra favour?
Biff, re-read the article. Xtra and Dale Smith never miss an opportunity to condemn the Tories. Here, they condemn the Tories for getting rid of the "two-for-one credit". In other words, they want gay bashers to get the benefit of the "two-for-one credit". While Xtra's article supports the "let's go softer on crime" agenda of the Liberal Party and the NDP, I don't see how it furthers gay rights or punishment of gay bashers.
Sam, Toronto Ontario
05/01/10 12:27 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
rational not soft on crime
You know you're hearing from a Con supporter when you start hearing phrases like "soft on crime". Wanting rational effective and financially responsible crime legislation is not being soft on crime. I believe that the biggest benefit of the 2 for 1 time credit is that it encourages the crown to move faster in getting to court, plus it is harder time as mentioned in the article, than in a proper jail and that should be recognized. The huge additional cost is also a factor and has to be considered when evaluating the effectiveness of getting rid of the time credit. We apparently can't afford to help citizens in need in this country yet apparently we have endless amounts of cash to punish them. The other mandatory minimum legislation is far worse in my opinion since it removes judicial discretion from the equation and will make it so some folks get unjust prison sentences plus the huge amount its going to cost to lock up all these extra people for minor crimes. The drug bill is an excellent example of the ineffective and unjust nature of Harper's "tough on crime" policies. That bill will make lots of money for organized crime since it will punish people growing 2 pot plants for personal use the same as someone growing 2000 for commercial distribution, both will go to jail for the same amount of time regardless of the fact the one growing personal amounts doesn't deserve it. It will have the effect of stopping the grow your own movement and organized criminals will benefit from all the extra business. If they wanted to take a bite out of organized crime it would have made more sense to lighten the punishment for growing personal amounts to a fine instead of increasing it to jail time. If minimum sentences worked the US would have the least crime in the world since it imprisons more of its population than any other country in the world yet they have a much higher crime rate than we do, at least for now, I suspect Harper's bills will increase violent c
Rich, Toronto Ontario
05/01/10 8:20 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Confused comments
Some previous comments are confused. The Harper agenda isn't about gaybashers, to my knowledge. If any words specific to gaybashing are in the proposal, let's see them. If you want stronger laws against assault or hate crimes, then you need to focus on those laws, not on whether two-for-one credit is reasonable generally. Also, the opposition parties aren't soft on crime. They are realistic. There is no epidemic of crime in Canada. However, just look south of the border to see what being Tough On Crime gets you: broke, ineffective, violent, ripped off.
Randy, Windsor ON
05/01/10 8:22 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
We get What We Vote For
Hey everyone, I have an idea. Why don't we Canadians coast to coast vote the federal Liberals back into power so that the poor criminals we have in this country aren't treated as badly as they are by the Conservative party. Take a few minutes one afternoon and google some of Canada's softest laws on the books and you'll see what party was in power when they were enacted (the Federal Liberal Party of Canada). One last thing, don't cry the blues when you read stories of gay bashing where the sentence is little or nothing for the crime.
Jeff Taylor, Toronto Ontario
05/02/10 12:38 AM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Hard Crime, Hard Time
While the Tories are the last people I would agree with, I agree with Bill C25. Decent hardworking Canadians are fed up with crime. This idea of getting double credit for time has to go. If I had my druthers, I would turn our prisons into re-education facilities to teach these people how to live in a democratic, free society. It seems they didn't learn how to from their parents. Enough of this pandering to criminals, I say, stand up and speak up LOUDLY for victims of crime. 'Nuff said.
Kieran Earles, Mount Pearl Newfoundland
05/02/10 2:17 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
"Hard on Crime" Theatrics
In case you pro-"Conservatives" missed it (or, more likely, purposely ignored it), the costs of Bill C-25 were estimated at $90 million dollars. That is a lie, as it's now been revealed to be 2 to 7 billion (or, 22 to 77 times more expensive). These costs were not accounted for, and apparently will be mostly downloaded to the provinces .. an unwelcome and unexpected expense that will further strain provincial budgets. So, the "Conservatives" (you know, who purport to own the "fiscal conservative" space) have ended up spending an OBSCENE amount of money on a problem that statistics say doesn't really exist (crime rates continue to drop, a trend that's been going on long before the "Conservatives" took power). It's wasteful, and plays to people's irrational fears, stoked largely by the "conservative" right.
Dan, Toronto ON
05/03/10 10:09 AM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Get Real - Please
Hey Dan, so are you saying that because keeping criminals off our streets costs money, we (Canadian society) should just through in the towel and allow our friends, our families, and ourselves to continue to be victims ? That might be the plan you think works best for you, but speaking for myself, my friends and my family, that's just not on. Another point (& fact) that drives me crazy about Canadian Liberals is when they say the USA has more crime and lock up more people than Canada does. OF COURSE THEY DO ! THEY HAVE ALMOST 300 MILLION PEOPLE LIVING IN THEIR COUNTRY ! Canada has 32 million. DO THE MATH. The fact(s) is that per capita, Canada's crime rate is worse than it is in the US. Please, do some serious research before you type your comments. In closing, Dan, I hope you, or someone close to you, never become a victim of serious crime.
Jeff Taylor, Toronto Ontario
05/03/10 11:33 AM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
wah wah wah
Jeff - you could follow your own advice re research: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri_percap-crime-total-crimes-per-capita indicates Canada's crime-per-captia rate is less than that of the United Sates (ditto for specific crimes such as assaults and murders). That would be The Fact you've gotten wrong. All the caps in the world won't alter that. Also, nothing in your comment addresses the reality that the Conservatives are either incompetent or willfully deceptive in getting this legislation passed into law, and we, as taxpayers, are going to shoulder the costs .. likely for no benefit at all. In either case, the Conservatives deserve to be called out for their incompetence or deception - neither behaviour is acceptable. Actual reform, from training/education and other programs to reform criminals (as in petty crime.. C25 would have little effect on major crime), to better priorities on enforcement, to examining why the courts are so slow in processing criminals would be paths the Conservatives could follow to actually make Canadians "safer." Instead, they continue to stick to scare tactics and fear mongering to convince Canadians we're all perpetually in grave danger, shirking away from tackling the real and difficult problems.
Dan, Toronto ON
05/03/10 12:01 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Spend your way to 'safety'
So, Kieran Earles, you're perfectly OK with the Conservatives adding an addition 2 to 7 BILLION dollar burden to Canadian taxpayers, per year, on this piece of legislation? Are you willing to see your other services reduced in order to pay for it? Or an increase in your (likely provincial) taxes? The Conservatives just announced they're going to make $1.7B in spending cuts, which will most likely affect the services it offers to all Canadians (CBC: http://bit.ly/aJ24YH). This bill is a complete waste of money.. something that these "fiscal conservatives" ought to abhor.
Dan, Toronto ON
05/03/10 2:37 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Oh Dan, STOP - ;)
Dear Dan, anybody can find a few articles on the internet to back up their claims. The complete facts are that Canada's crime rate has held fairly steady and in the case of some violent crimes, it has in fact come down a little, BUT the fact remains that per capita, Canada's over-all crime rate is higher than the United States. As for the federal Conservative party being / acting incompetent or using deception tactics, you might want to add to your list of research projects, the federal Liberal Party of Canada.
Jeff Taylor, Toronto Ontario
05/06/10 1:15 AM EST
Report this comment to moderator.