Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Legal and Constitutional Affairs
Issue 7 - Evidence for February 14, 2008
OTTAWA, Thursday, February 14, 2008
The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, to which was referred Bill C-2, An Act to amend the Criminal code and to make consequential amendments to other acts, met this day at 10:47 a.m. to give consideration to the bill.
Senator Joan Fraser (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good morning, and welcome to this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, which is continuing its study of Bill C-2.
[Translation]
We will hear, this morning, during the first part of our meeting, Mrs Lyne Barr-Telford, Director, Mr. John Turner, Chief of Policing Services and Mr. Craig Grimes, Unit Head, Courts Program, all from the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics.
We are very interested in hearing your testimony because you will be presenting facts to us. We often hear analysis opinions, but you, you have facts.
You are used to appear before the Committee of the Senate and even before those of the other place.
[English]
We will ask you to begin with your presentation, and then we will go to questions. In total, we will only have about an hour and a quarter. If you could tailor your presentation so as to leave us a good chunk of time for questions, that would be very helpful.
Lynn Barr-Telford, Director, Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics: First, I would like to thank the committee for the opportunity to present to you today on crime trends in Canada.
There is no single measure that can capture the complete picture of what is happening with crime in Canada. We need to look beyond the overall trends to understand what is happening. For this reason, our presentation today will cover overall trends in crime but will look more closely at violent crime trends, at firearm use in violent crime by offence type, and at trends in other offences related to the bill under your consideration, including other sexual offences, impaired driving and drug offences.
There are areas under consideration in this bill for which we do not have data. We do not, for example, have data on the granting of bail, nor do we have data on offences committed by those who are on bail. We are currently not able to provide information on dangerous and long-term offenders.
I invite you to turn to the second slide in the presentation package that you have in front of you. I would make just a quick note about the sources of data that we are using for this presentation. We use two primary sources of data for measuring crime in Canada: police-reported surveys and victimization surveys of Canadians from randomly selected households. Each of these sources provides valuable information on what is happening with crime in Canada. In this particular presentation, we are using police-reported data in order to show trends by specific offence types. In some cases, and you will notice there are data notes on the slides, data are available only back to 1998 and only from a select number of police services. Our data are not nationally representative. That is indicated on your slides.
We also measure on a more infrequent basis Canadians' experience of victimization. Here we capture incidents that are reported and not reported to police. At the end of your presentation, you will see some supplemental slides. I will not speak to those directly. They are there for your future reference. In a few places, we will draw from data from our courts program so that we can speak to the disposition of specific offence types related to the bill that is under your consideration.
Moving to slide 3, let us take a quick look at some overall crime trends in Canada. Let us start with the graphic in this slide that is on your left.
The total national crime rate is shown in the black line at the top. It shows that after peaking in 1991, the overall national crime rate in Canada has generally been declining since that point. The overall crime rate is simply the total number of Criminal Code offences, excluding traffic and drug offences, divided by population. You can see that it reached a 25-year low in 2006 and was 27 per cent lower than it was in 1991.
The national crime rate is at about the same level as it was in 1979. This overall rate is driven by trends in relatively minor, high-volume crimes. Minor thefts and mischief accounted for about 40 per cent of the total volume of crime in Canada in 2006.
The property crime rate is the blue line on that graphic. You can see that it was at its lowest point in 30 years. Break and enters, a serious property offence, peaked in 1991, and they have declined sharply since. They are down about 50 per cent since 1991. Motor vehicle thefts are down by 20 per cent since they peaked a little bit later, in 1996.
The green line on the left is the overall violent crime rate. I invite you to look at the right-hand side of that graph, because this is a close-up view of what is happening with the overall violent crime rate in Canada. It is very important to mention that six in ten violent crimes in Canada are minor assaults, and they do tend to drive the overall violent crime rate. The violent crime rate peaked in 1992, and then it dropped by 12 per cent between 1992 and 1999. Since that time, the violent crime rate has been relatively stable.
This is the overall picture, but to get a better understanding of what is happening with violent crime in Canada, we need to look beneath this surface view. We know that other than the drop in homicides that we saw in 2006, most other serious violent crimes have been on the rise in the most recent years. Before we look closely at these more serious violent crimes, let us take a look at overall firearms use in violent crime, and that is on your next slide.
Most violent crimes in Canada do not involve a firearm. Physical force and threatening behaviour are more common. In 2006, for example, a firearm was used against 2.4 per cent of victims of violent crime. There were just over 8,100 victims of firearm-related violent crime in 2006, out of close to 336,000 victims of violent crime overall — a small percentage.
Based on a subset of police services, you see in this slide the rate of victims of firearm-related violent crime over time. You can see that it remained stable between 2003 and 2006. It did drop 27 per cent between 1999 and 2002, before it increased by 16 per cent between 2002 and 2003, but since 2003 it has remained relatively stable.
Not shown on your slide, but important to note, is that almost 1,300 youth were accused of firearm-related violence in 2006. The rate of youth accused of firearm-related violence has increased in three of the past four years. It has gone up by 32 per cent since 2002, and it is at its highest point since data were available in 1998.
This gives you a sense of what is happening in overall firearm-related violent crime in Canada. I would like to look more closely at two serious violent offences in this country: homicides and attempted murders. I would invite you to turn to slide 5. It is important to remember that these offences account for a very small proportion of crimes known to police, less than 0.5 per cent. Because of these relatively small numbers, it is not uncommon for us to see large annual fluctuations in the data.
The homicide rate, which is shown in red on this graphic, peaked in the mid-1970s, and it has generally been declining since, but we have in recent years seen some increases in the homicide rate. In two of the past three years, it has gone up, and it is up 7 per cent since 2003. Even with this increase, the 2006 homicide rate was 39 per cent lower than its peak in 1975.
The trend in attempted murders is shown in blue on this graphic, and it has generally followed, as you can see, the trend in the homicide rate. The attempted murder rate has also seen increases in each of the past two years. We have seen increases in the attempted murder rate. It is up 24 per cent since 2004.
That is the picture of what is happening with these two serious violent offences.
Let us take a look now on slide six at what is happening with firearm use in homicide over time. We know that homicide and attempted murder make up a small share of the overall volume of firearm-related crime, but these offences are more often committed with a firearm. About one third of attempted murders and about one third of homicides annually are committed with a firearm. You can see from the dark black line at the top that the rate of homicides committed with a firearm in 2006 was 47 per cent lower than it was in 1977. It has generally been declining. Most of this decline was seen before 1998, up to 1998.
The overall decline in the rate of rifle and shotguns, which is shown in blue, has driven that overall decline in firearm-related homicides. You can see that downward trend in blue in rifle and shotguns. On the other hand, the rate of homicides involving a handgun increased sharply in the late 1980s and early 1990s, but since that time it has remained relatively stable.
You can see a crossover point in that graphic where the red line and the blue line cross over. The use of handguns to commit homicide in Canada surpassed rifles and shotguns in 1991. Handguns have remained the most common type of firearm used to commit homicide since that time. In 2006, three times as many victims were killed by a handgun as by a rifle or shotgun.
Historically, stabbings and shootings have each accounted for about one third of homicides annually, and while we did not put this on the graph, we do know from our data that the rate of attempted murders committed with a firearm has remained relatively stable over the past decade.
Let us look at another serious violent offence in Canada and trends that have been happening over time. There were about 30,000 robberies in Canada in 2006, and from the top line, which is the overall robbery rate, you can see that they peaked in 1991, and then they declined by 29 per cent up to 2002. However, the robbery rate has gone up in three of the past four years. It is up 11 per cent since 2002. This increase that you see in the overall robbery rate in recent years is driven by robberies committed without a weapon. That is the blue line on this graphic.
Robberies committed with a firearm — shown in red — steadily dropped from 1991 to 2002, and they have remained relatively stable since that time. They are at the lowest levels we have seen in 30 years.
To put it into context, about one in eight robberies involves a firearm — 12 per cent of robberies. While they are a higher-volume offence, they are less likely to be committed with a firearm than are homicides or attempted murder.
It is not on your graphic, but robberies with a weapon other than a firearm — knives, for example — have remained relatively stable over the last 15 years.
We can also look at assaults as violent crime. On slide eight we have a graphic showing the trend in serious assaults over several years.
Most assaults in Canada are level 1 assaults, which is the least serious level of assault. However, as you can see from the blue line on the graphic, the combined rate of aggravated assaults and assaults with a weapon or causing bodily harm has increased steadily. It is up 57 per cent since 1983. The 2006 rate was at its highest point since these offences were created in 1983.
The rate of serious assaults is primarily driven by assault with a weapon or causing bodily harm — level 2 assaults. They make up more than 90 per cent of these offences. In 2006, 4 per cent of these serious assaults involved a firearm. This rate has been relatively stable over the past decade.
We did not put it on the graph, but we do know from our data that sexual assaults peaked in the early 1990s. They have dropped by 44 per cent since 1993, and fewer than 0.5 per cent of sexual assaults involved a firearm in 2006.
To this point we have talked about the incidents, the volume of serious violent offences and trends in firearm use. Our data also allow us to take a look at how courts process firearm offences that do carry a mandatory minimum sentence of four years' imprisonment.
That is what the graphic on slide 9 refers to. In 2005-06, we had 211 cases completed in adult criminal court where the most serious offence in the case was a firearms offence carrying a four-year mandatory minimum sentence. These firearms offences make up a low volume of cases in the adult criminal courts. They represent far less than 1 per cent of the total caseload.
As you can see from the graphic, fewer firearms cases are being convicted. The proportion of these cases resulting in conviction dropped from 69 per cent a decade ago, 1996-97, to 40 per cent in 2005-06.
We can look at cases, but we can also look at all charges that involve one of these ten firearms-related offences. Most of these are not convicted — 16 per cent in 2005-06. This was down significantly from 44 per cent a decade earlier.
To complete the picture, if we look at all cases that had at least one of these firearms offences present, whether it was the most serious offence or not, we have a total of 395 cases in 2005-06 — still a low volume in terms of the court caseload. About six in ten of these court cases resulted in a conviction for at least one of the charges in that case in 2005-06. About four in ten of these cases had no conviction on any charge in the case.
In 2005-06, we can also look at the average length of custody for convictions involving these firearms offences. It was 4.2 years. This compares to 1.8 years for the same offences where a firearm was not listed as a characteristic in the case.
We can also look at guilty pleas. Over the decade, from 1996 to 2005-06, the proportion of convicted cases with a guilty plea dropped from 94 per cent to 88 per cent.
In summary, we have seen fewer of these firearms offence cases being convicted in the adult criminal courts.
Up to now we have talked a lot about violent crime, firearms and how the courts process firearms offences with the four-year mandatory minimum sentences. I will switch gears a little bit here and take a look at another set of offences that are under your consideration for Bill C-2. We will look at what we call ``other sexual offences.''
In 2006 there were just under 3,000 of these. Other sexual offences include such offences as sexual interference, invitation to sexual touching, sexual exploitation, incest, anal intercourse and bestiality.
It is very important to recognize that given the secrecy that surrounds sexual offences, they are the least likely offence to come to the attention of the police. Our 2004 victimization survey showed that only 8 per cent of sexual offences are brought to the attention of the police. We suspect that reporting rates may be even lower for those who are younger than 15 years old.
We cannot disaggregate in our data these offences by individual offence type, but we do know from our courts' data that about three quarters of these are likely sexual interference incidents.
Let us take a look at what was happening in those offences. The rate of these other sexual offences dropped by 44 per cent between 1993 and 2003. You can see the overall downward trend here. In more recent years, the rate has increased by 6 per cent. It is up 6 per cent since 2003.
We also know from our data that girls aged 12 to 14 are the most vulnerable group for these offences. We also know that half of all other sexual offences are committed by friends and acquaintances, and over a third by family members.
Just like the firearms' offences, we can also look at how our courts process these other sexual offence cases. We know that in 2005-06 the conviction rate for other sexual offences was 54 per cent. This is comparable to the conviction rate for violent offences overall at 53 per cent. It was a little higher than the conviction rate for sexual assaults, but lower than the conviction rate for all offences overall.
Once convicted, we know that these cases are treated seriously by the courts. Prison sentences are imposed in approximately 64 per cent of guilty cases of other sexual offences, and this compares to 52 per cent of sexual assaults and 34 per cent of all guilty cases.
We know that the average sentence length for guilty cases in 2005-06 was 444 days. This average has actually increased over the last decade or so from 1996-97. It is about 30 days longer than it was in 1996-97.
For comparison's sake, the average length of custody for sexual assaults is a little higher at 481 days. The average prison sentence for other sexual offences and sexual assaults is much higher than the custody sentence for all violent offences, which was 240 days.
The final piece we wanted to share with you today regarding the bill under your consideration is some information on overall impaired driving offences as well as drug offences. We are not able to separate impaired driving offences into drug and alcohol. This is because it is one Criminal Code offence, and that is how our data come to us. We can only provide you an overview of what is happening with these offences as an overall picture. It is also important to note that trends in impaired driving and drug offences may be particularly affected by police enforcement practices.
We did see a drop in the rate of impaired driving offences by 68 per cent between 1981 and 2006. They have been steadily declining since the early 1980s. We know from our courts that impaired driving offences make up a high volume of offences in our courts. They accounted for 11 per cent of total federal statute offences in our adult criminal courts. That was down from 15 per cent a decade earlier, but it is still a fairly high volume for the court system.
With respect to drugs, we know that there are more cannabis offences now than during the 1990s but fewer than 30 years ago. Cannabis offences used to comprise about 90 per cent of all drug offences during the late 1970s and early 1980s, and this proportion has dropped to 60 per cent or 70 per cent in recent years. We have seen sharp increases in cocaine offences over the past five years. The rate of these offences has gone up by 67 per cent since 2002. It was at its highest point in 2006. We have also seen increases in other drugs, such as crystal meth. These offences have been increasing since the mid-1990s.
This gives you an overall picture of what is happening with respect to the offences, but we cannot break impaired driving down by drug or alcohol-related incidents.
This is the information that we have to share with you this morning, and we would be happy to answer any questions.
Senator Carstairs: Based on the statistics that you have put before us, we do not have a rampantly growing crime rate in Canada. Yet, it is fair to say that the perception among many Canadians is that crime is on the increase, that there are more murders, more sexual assaults, more drug offences, et cetera. From your trends, have you any idea why the perception and the reality are quite far removed?
Ms. Barr-Telford: That is a very difficult question to answer. I can speak to what our data says. Let us look at violent crime, for example. The overall rate of violent crime is driven by minor assaults. We have seen it remain relatively stable since the late 1990s. In more recent years, we have seen some increases in some serious violent crimes. Last year, we saw a drop in homicides, but in the two previous years, we saw an increase. We have seen an increase in recent years in attempted murders and some increases in recent years of robbery. While the overall long-term drop and the long-term trend in these serious violent offences has been downward, we have in more recent years seen some increases. We have seen a steady increase, as I showed, in serious assault offences as well in our data. As I said at the beginning, there is no one single measure that captures the complete picture. You will see different patterns within different offence types; so while there is stability in the overall violent crime trend, in more recent years we have seen increases in some serious violent crimes.
Senator Carstairs: I recognize you did not go back to the 1940s for your statistics, but back in the time I was raised, the situation was quite different: I played outside all the time, and no one was the least bit concerned that I was running up the backyard to play hockey with my brothers or walking to school, which was a mile and a quarter away, and walking home at lunch, and walking back after lunch and walking home. My mother did not drive a car. There was never any sense I would ever be driven to school. Why are parents in this country so terrified now? I talk to parents who are raising children today and they seem absolutely terrified to let their children out of their sight for a single minute. What is the explanation for that?
Ms. Barr-Telford: In terms of Canadians and their feelings about crime in Canada, I can offer you the data from our most recent victimization survey that was conducted in 2004. We will not be conducting another one until 2009, so these are the most recent data we have. If we compare 1999 to 2004 from this survey, we saw that Canadians were increasingly satisfied with their personal safety from crime; 91 per cent of Canadians in 1991 said that they were satisfied with their personal safety from crime, and this rose to 94 per cent in 2004. I can speak only to the trends we have seen in our data.
Senator Carstairs: You did not give statistics on this, so you may not have them, but there has been an argument around changing the age of consent to bring us into compliance, if you will, with age of consent laws in other countries. Do you have any data that there is more sexual exploitation or non-sexual exploitation of Canadian boys and girls than there is of children in, for example, the United Kingdom or the United States where there is a higher age of consent?
Ms. Barr-Telford: I am not personally aware of the statistics available from other countries on this particular domain. I will ask my colleague if he is aware of any.
John Turner, Chief of Policing Services Program, Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics: No, we have not come across any comparable statistics from other countries on that.
Senator Carstairs: This is not based on evidence, to the best of your knowledge; it is simply based on a concept that maybe we should go to a higher age of consent.
Ms. Barr-Telford: I cannot speak to any other data source that might have been considered. I am not aware of data sets that we have at our disposal at Statistics Canada to allow us to look at that question.
Senator Andreychuk: Thank you for the material, because it is extremely helpful. I am pleased to see that we are starting to track information. I recall when the centre was set up. I knew the first director. It was an issue, and we always said we needed to track the trends. That was always a missing piece of analysis.
Do you just track the generic statistics with all of the difficulties that you have, or do you have any analysis that shows that in the year 1991, for example, A, B, C and D laws were changed, and could you track then where there have been legal interventions as opposed to all other preventive matters and whether those have had any impact? In other words, is it just raw data we are getting and we will have to determine why those outcomes are up or down, or do you match them to anything? I think the first would be the Criminal Code changes.
Ms. Barr-Telford: With respect to some legislative changes, we do know at which points in history legislative changes have been made, for example the mandatory minimum sentencing provisions and so forth. While we can show these cut points along the trend lines within the data, it is very difficult to draw a direct connection to one single factor that may be driving or not driving an offence. Many things can be happening and having an impact on the incidence of crime. Some analyses have looked at the impact on economic-type crimes, robbery and break and enters, for example, and there has been correlation with inflation rates. We have seen analyses on age structures and their relationship to break and enters. Multiple different factors can be happening across a crime trend that make it difficult to make a connection to any one single factor. We do know the points in time where various legislative changes have been made, and where there is a Criminal Code change, it is reflected in the data we bring in. For example, when other sexual offences were created in 1983, we did collect the data once they started to be created. While we can plot them, it is difficult to draw direct connections.
The Chair: Senator Andreychuk, could I ask a supplementary to that?
Senator Andreychuk: Certainly.
The Chair: Ms. Barr-Telford, Senator Andreychuk mentioned specifically the year 1991. Particularly in the first few slides that you have here, 1991 seems to be a break point year. There does seem to be a significant shift in a number of those slides that year. Do you have any idea at all from all these analyses what happened that year?
Ms. Barr-Telford: There has been a fair amount of research in different communities trying to determine what has happened. We did see some very steep increases through the 1970s, 1980s and into the early 1990s and then drops in the crime rate over time from that. Many of the offences you have seen today peaked at that point in time.
There have been various different ways of looking at it. Some have looked at the impact of the changing age structure on that phenomenon. However, not any one factor will impact all offences in the same way. Therefore, I do not have a simple answer for you on the question about what was driving that.
The Chair: It sounds like a perfect storm of influences coming together.
Ms. Barr-Telford: It is likely many influences.
Mr. Turner: I believe the same pattern occurred in the United States. They peaked in the early 1990s, and there was no one single explanation. They looked at demographics, but there was more to it than that; it was not straightforward.
Senator Andreychuk: I will get back to my point. As I understand your testimony, overall crime rates have not increased or accelerated. In fact, in some cases they dropped. However, serious violent crimes started to go up in the last number of years. You point out that your latest police and victimization data indicate that there was a certain general degree of satisfaction and safety of people in 2004. Serious violent crime has taken hold in your statistics after that point in the last couple of years.
I am not very good at graphs and things. Am I correct in saying people expressed satisfaction from 2004 and going back for a decade saying they felt reasonably safe? That might explain why we are hearing from constituents now about a great unease, because serious violent crimes, and I underscore the word ``violent,'' are on the increase. It is not a question then of numbers, it is a question of the impact of violence. Am I correct?
Ms. Barr-Telford: You are certainly correct that 2004 was the last time that Statistics Canada asked that question of Canadians, and 94 per cent of Canadians said they were satisfied with their personal safety at that point in time. I do not have anything more recent to offer by way of explanation.
Slide 5 and slide 6 are a good way to try to answer the other question on what has been happening with trends with respect to those serious violent crimes. We have, generally speaking, seen a downward trend in homicides, attempted murders and robbery over the longer-term trend. It has been in the most recent years where we have some increases in these serious violent crimes.
For robbery, we know that it is not being driven by robberies with a firearm, for example. They have been very stable since the late 1990s.
Slide 6 shows the trend in total firearm-related homicides and what has been happening there. While the general trend is certainly downward in the overall firearms, we have seen stability since 1991 in the rate of handguns used to commit homicide in Canada.
As I said, there is no single way to look at this picture. The trend in homicide and murder rates is generally declining over time. However, we have seen increases recently in serious violent crime.
Senator Andreychuk: Looking at graph 6, how many cases are we talking about? You have tracked to 2005 only. You do not have 2006.
Ms. Barr-Telford: Year 2006 is the last point on this graph. It is not labelled.
Senator Andreychuk: For the record, in 2006, how many homicides did we have with rifles and how many with handguns?
Ms. Barr-Telford: There are about 600 homicides overall, and we can break them down for you by the number with handguns and the number with rifle shotguns.
Mr. Turner: In 2006, we had 108 homicides by handgun, 36 with a rifle shotgun, 24 with a sawed-off rifle shotgun and the remainder with other types of firearms. We had a total of 190 firearms homicides.
Ms. Barr-Telford: There were 190 firearm-related homicides in total. That is about a third of the total homicides.
Senator Andreychuk: Graph 8 indicates that serious assault is at the highest levels in 25 years. I appreciate that many assaults, 6 in 10, are minor assaults. However, are aggravated assaults at the highest rate in 25 years?
Ms. Barr-Telford: This is a combination of level 2 and level 3 assaults. Level 2 assaults are those with a weapon or causing bodily harm, and level 3 are aggravated assaults. Combined, we have seen a steady increase in the rates of these offences. In 2006, approximately 4 per cent of these involved a firearm.
Senator Andreychuk: Therefore, the lesser end of the assault scale is not accelerating, but the aggravated assaults are.
Ms. Barr-Telford: Yes, we have seen that level 1 assaults, common assaults, have remained relatively stable over this period. However, because of their volume, they make up 6 in 10 violent crimes.
Senator Andreychuk: On the statistics relating to youth, slide 10, there is a decrease in other sexual offences since 1993. However, there is a worrisome issue that has plagued me not just in the last 10 years but in my years in practice and then on the bench. Are you saying that young girls, aged 12 to 14, are the most vulnerable group for sexual offences?
Ms. Barr-Telford: Yes, for these other sexual offences.
Senator Andreychuk: You indicate that the rate has increased since 2003. Girls aged 12 to 14 are the most vulnerable statistically, and almost half of other sexual offences are committed by friends and acquaintances while over one third are by family members.
Ms. Barr-Telford: That is correct.
Senator Andreychuk: That is the hardest to get at. Are you saying that there are more positive trends in other areas, but this one half of other sexual offences committed by friends, acquaintances, and family is the worrisome statistic because it is increasing?
Ms. Barr-Telford: We are saying that if you look at all these offences in total, about half of the total were committed by friends or acquaintances and about a third of the total were committed by family. The trend line does not refer to the relationship between the accused and the victim. It is simply the proportion in 2006 that were committed by friends, family or acquaintances.
The Chair: Senator Andreychuk, we will put you down for the second round. We have a problem of time limitation. It is fascinating stuff, but the trouble is all honourable senators think that.
Senator Baker: I am normally quite impressed with the work of your division and Statistics Canada, but especially your division, because as you know, you are quoted quite often in case law. You have all over the years been quoted for your accuracy and your statistics. I am not happy here today with your presentation, and I will tell you why.
I go to the section with the heading ``Steady decline in impaired driving offences since the early 1980s.'' Let us remember that in this bill we are dealing with perhaps the most intrusive change in law that we have seen in the past two decades for ordinary Canadians. People who are on prescription drugs will for the first time in Canadian law be held accountable at roadside with physical coordination tests. It is a huge change in the law, and, of course, the lawyers have told us they will challenge the constitutionality of this because the statistics are not there to warrant what is called in law an ``arbitrary detention.'' That will not be saved by section 1 of the Charter unless your branch comes up with the statistics to justify such an arbitrary detention.
I hope you are following me, because your statistics here on this entire page talk about impaired driving, and the bill talks about drugs, specifically drug-impaired driving, not alcohol-impaired driving.
Under the heading of impaired driving, on slide 11, you make the following points: trends in drug crime are driven primarily by cannabis offences, usually possession; there are more cannabis offences now than during the 1990s but fewer than 30 years ago; there has been a sharp increase in cocaine offences over the past 5 years; and other drug, such as crystal meth, offences have been increasing since the mid-1990s. That is all under the heading of impaired driving. Are you saying that there has been a sharp increase in cocaine-impaired driving offences in the past five years, and that there has been a substantial increase in crystal meth-impaired driving offences since the mid-1990s? Is that what you are saying in this chart?
Ms. Barr-Telford: No, that is not what we are saying in the chart.
Senator Baker: Why are you saying it?
Ms. Barr-Telford: As I said in my remarks regarding this particular slide, we are limited by the fact that impaired driving offences are one Criminal Code offence. We gather our statistics in that way. We are not able to separate drug- related impaired driving from alcohol-related impaired driving, and it most certainly is a limitation in the data.
Senator Baker: Okay. Let me then confront you with this question, because this is important. The Supreme Court of Canada, the superior court to the court that you adjudicated, used the statistics from the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics on impaired driving, 1992, in R. v. Bernshaw and in many cases thereafter to justify arbitrary detention at roadside, without rights to counsel, to administer the roadside test at which it will be judged whether you pass or fail, which forms then the reasonable grounds to believe that you are impaired, to make the breathalyzer demand. The statistics they used to justify it were from your division, but just listen to the wording of the statistics from your division: ``. . . alcohol is a contributing factor in 43 per cent of those motor vehicle accidents which cause death and injury.'' They do not say ``alcohol and drugs.'' All of the statistics quoted from your division said ``alcohol.'' It did not say alcohol and drugs.
Are you now saying that you were at that time, as you are now, unable to separate alcohol offences from drug offences? In fact, this was not a statistic for alcohol, as has been used by our courts in the past twenty years, but a statistic for alcohol and drug-impaired drivers?
Ms. Barr-Telford: There are a few things I would like to talk about with respect to your remarks. I will also invite Mr. Turner to contribute if he has more specifics around the definitions and so forth of this particular offence.
We are careful at the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics to indicate clearly the strengths and weaknesses of the data. To clearly indicate the quality of the data is one of the policies that we live by. Where there are limitations in the data, we certainly recognize those.
In this case, one of the limitations in the data by nature of its definition is that we cannot separate the drug-impaired from alcohol-impaired driving. We also recognize with this particular offence that it is limited by the fact, as I said in my opening remarks, that alcohol-impaired driving, drug-impaired driving, or impaired driving, can be particularly affected by police enforcement practices.
Mr. Turner: We collect the data directly from police services under the category of impaired driving. We do not make the distinction, and we are not able to get the distinction between alcohol and drugs. That is how we report it in our reports. It is just impaired driving.
Senator Baker: Do you understand the importance of the question being asked? Were you asked this question in the House of Commons committee? Surely, you were asked this question when you appeared before the House of Commons on this bill.
Ms. Barr-Telford: We did not appear on this particular bill.
Senator Baker: Well, that does not surprise me, because the House of Commons just does not do a thorough job dealing with bills anyway. They never have. I was there for 30 years and sat on the justice committees.
Do you understand the importance of this question I am asking? We were all waiting to find out, because these new measures will affect innocent people at roadside who take medication for arthritis and who drive too slowly on the road, which is indicia of impairment. When the police officer stops them, because it is against the law to drive too slowly under the Highway Traffic Act in every province, if there is no smell of alcohol on their breath, this law mandates that the officer ask them whether they are taking a drug. The entire procedure that then flows from that, which is a denial of rights to counsel upon detention, rests with the survival of this law under section 1 of the Charter as a reasonable limitation of your rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
You are claiming that there are no statistics at all to justify the detention that results from the performing of these roadside physical coordination tests that we are about to pass into law. You are saying that these figures do not exist. That is bad enough, but when I look at what existed to justify the blowing into the machine at roadside by the Supreme Court of Canada and all of our other courts, they were using statistics from you that dealt with alcohol. I have the ones here that were used by the Supreme Court of Canada that you said were only alcohol-related. You did not say alcohol and drugs. We know the law says alcohol or a drug, but your statistics were based on alcohol that justified the blowing into the machine. Now there is nothing to justify the physical coordination test, so that is the importance of it.
I am sorry, madam chair, but it is a very important question.
The Chair: You made it very clear. I am sure that the witnesses have understood your question. Could they respond to it?
Senator Baker: They do a great job. I am not criticizing the work they do. It is just the lack of statistics on this bill.
The Chair: Might I sneak in a subsidiary? Is it conceivable that the learned justices of the Supreme Court of Canada misread one of your slides?
Senator Andreychuk: I do not think you can put that to them.
Ms. Barr-Telford: I am not familiar with the data used in this case. I am also not familiar with the caveats that were placed around those data when they were requested from the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, nor am I familiar with whether the case drew on data from an existing publication of Statistics Canada.
It is very difficult for me to comment on how those data were used when I am unaware of the circumstances around and the nature of the data that were provided or the source from which those data were taken.
Senator Di Nino: Do you have geographic breakdowns on the statistics you have provided this morning?
Ms. Barr-Telford: Yes, we do.
Senator Di Nino: Can you extrapolate for me the statistics for the Greater Toronto Area?
Mr. Turner: What types of crimes are you interested in?
Senator Di Nino: Deal for a moment with serious violent crimes, sexual offences and so forth.
The Chair: Senator Di Nino, it is very interesting to get more detailed breakdowns, but if you could tell the witnesses the specific data you would like to have supplied, they can supply them to us. In the meantime, perhaps we can proceed with questions. Does that sound reasonable to you?
Senator Di Nino: Yes, that is fine. I am looking at serious assaults and use of firearms, as well as sexual offences.
Ms. Barr-Telford: We would be happy to supply that information to you.
Senator Di Nino: If this question is unfair, you can tell me. Would the statistics show that there has been a larger increase in the Greater Toronto Area — and probably in other major urban centres such as Winnipeg and Vancouver — than national statistics would show for the commission of serious firearm offences?
Ms. Barr-Telford: I can give you one piece of information on that, and we will supply you the answer to those questions later. The rate of youth accused of firearm-related violent crimes in Toronto is far higher than the national average.
Senator Di Nino: It is important for us to understand that. I come from the city of Toronto, where most of us are very concerned about walking the streets.
I was disturbed by the statistics on other sexual offences. These offences are sometimes looked upon as not particularly bad. I do not agree with that. Did you say that only 8 per cent of the cases are reported? Is that correct, in your opinion?
Ms. Barr-Telford: One of the strengths of victimization data is that we can ask Canadians whether they reported an incident to the police. In cases where they did not, we can ask them the reasons for that.
From that 2004 data, we found that about 8 per cent of sexual offences come to the attention of police. They are the least likely offences to be reported to police. The population we asked was aged 15 and over, so we suspect that the rate of reporting for those younger than 15 years may be even lower than that.
The last slide in your presentation package, which is on victimization data, provides the proportion of incidents that were reported to police in 1999 and in 2004.
Senator Di Nino: It sounds like we have an epidemic that is not being reported.
Is that statistic similar as it relates to girls and boys, or do you think boys would report even less frequently?
Ms. Barr-Telford: I do not have the data broken down by gender. This is a very small number in terms of reporting — 8 per cent overall.
Senator Di Nino: Am I correct that the information you gathered was for children 14 years old and younger?
Ms. Barr-Telford: Do you mean the statistics in terms of reporting or other sexual offences?
Senator Di Nino: All of it.
Ms. Barr-Telford: The other sexual offences are defined by the Canadian Criminal Code. They are a grouping of sections 151, 152 and 153, for example. They are defined by the Canadian Criminal Code, and many of these offences are age-defined. They are not all similarly age-defined, but there are definitions within the Criminal Code offence definition.
Senator Joyal: One suggestion, supported by many comments in public opinion, is that prison sentences are too light. That, of course, feeds the perception that the system does not work.
You have provided statistics on prison sentences. Slide 9 deals with firearms offences and slide 10 deals with sexual offences.
Can you comment on that perception? Is it your conclusion that there are some crimes for which there is a tendency to increase the sentences rather than decreasing them? Am I reading the statistics incorrectly? Is the general perception in relation to some crimes not supported by your data?
Ms. Barr-Telford: I can speak to the offences here, and I will invite Mr. Grimes to speak to what is happening with adult court sentencing overall. With the other sexual offences we referred to, we did see an increase in the average custodial sentence for these other sexual offences. It actually went up by about 30 days over the course of that decade. It went up from 414 days to 444 days. With respect to that particular offence, we did see an increase in the average length of prison term.
With respect to the firearms offences to which we were referring, the average length of sentences was 4.2 years. This was much higher than the 1.8 years that were given for the same offences when a firearm was not a characteristic of that type of crime, so it was a higher sentence.
Mr. Grimes may be able to answer in a more general sense on overall trends beyond these types of crimes.
Senator Joyal: You mentioned it only in relation to those two offences, but of course there are other offences you report on in this data. I would like to know whether the trend in sentencing is to decrease or increase sentences.
Craig Grimes, Unit Head, Courts Program, Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics: I will provide you with a few numbers now, and if you would like more numbers on overall trends by individual offences, I can provide that to the chair.
Senator Joyal: Yes, of course.
Mr. Grimes: As was mentioned in the slides, of those that are convicted, approximately 34 per cent are sentenced to custody and 4 per cent receive conditional sentences. This is overall for total offences. Thirty-one per cent receive probation, 27 per cent receive a fine and 5 per cent receive another sentence. That is the most serious sentence received on those convictions.
Now, the difference between those numbers and 10 years earlier is that 10 years ago, 30 per cent received custody as the most serious sanction for a conviction.
Senator Joyal: There has been an increase of 3 per cent, then.
Mr. Grimes: It is a small increase, and that number has been relatively stable over the history of the database, so for cases within adult criminal court for federal statute charges and cases.
Senator Joyal: In relation to the other types of sentencing — conditional, probation, fine — is there stability, or is there a reduction in the statistics that you have given us for this most recent data?
Mr. Grimes: We do not have any data for conditional sentencing from 10 years ago. That came in about 10 years ago. For probation, 29 per cent received probation compared to 31 per cent in 2005-06; 38 per cent received a fine in 1996 compared to 27 per cent in 2005-06, and during that time period there have been changes to the way in which fines could be implemented. Now there is the means test and individuals must be able to pay a fine in order to be sentenced to a fine, and 3 per cent received another decision.
Senator Joyal: In other words, there is no trend that the court is imposing lighter sentences for the same crime, if I read your statistics. Am I overstating your conclusion? Are we not in fact identifying a slight trend in increasing sentencing?
Mr. Grimes: In terms of the numbers being sentenced to custody, the proportions are about the same with very little difference, but there has been an increase in the average sentences for some of these offences. I have some of those statistics here with me.
For some offences, like sexual assault and other sexual offences, which we are considering today, there has been an increase of about 30 days in the average sentence.
Senator Joyal: Yes, you mentioned that.
Mr. Grimes: Overall, for total offences, the average sentence has gone down from 140 days to 125 days over that period. For violent offences, it went from around 246 days in 1996 to 240 days in 2005-06, and that trend has not been a stable increase or decrease; it has bounced around during that time period. I will provide that data to the chair.
Senator Joyal: Do you have statistics for the Canadian population that is affected by those statistics? In other words, and I will be more precise, could you give us the data for the Aboriginal population in relation to those offences you are reporting this morning? That way we will know what is the impact of those crimes and what we are dealing with in this bill in relation to the population that might be most directly affected by a change of the Criminal Code in relation to those offences.
Mr. Grimes: Well, the case data we present is a grouping of charges against one individual. A case during that time period results in a sanction against one person. I cannot speak to the impact on victims or victimization in relation to the courts' data, but a case is one case against one person.
Senator Joyal: Yes, but let me be more precise. Do you have statistics that show how large the proportion of the Aboriginal population is among all the people convicted of serious assault? I want to know the same information for robbery with a firearm, sexual assault and other sexual offences. In other words, in terms of the distribution of the Canadian population under those offences, what is the percentage of Aboriginals?
Mr. Grimes: Other than age and sex of the accused, I do not have any characteristics of the accused at my disposal.
Senator Oliver: Not race?
The Chair: Senator Joyal, or any senator, if there is specific data that you would like, if you get that to me today I will pass it to the witnesses, and perhaps they could provide it for us in the next week, which would be extremely helpful.
Mr. Turner, did you want to add a quick point?
Mr. Turner: We do have Aboriginal identity for a number of police services. We can tell you the number of victims and accused persons in those particular communities. There is a fairly high rate of unknown with that field, but we do have some data there.
Senator Joyal: I would be grateful if we could get that, sir.
The Chair: I am going to cut this off in 15 minutes. We have three senators, 15 minutes.
Senator Watt: My question follows along the same lines as Senator Joyal just raised. From the information I have collected, and looking at one particular province, it is claimed that 85 per cent of the people in Saskatchewan prisons are Aboriginal. Throughout the rest of Canada, figure is 21 per cent. I am not sure whether those numbers are accurate.
Who decides which statistics to report? What are the criteria to decide what to report?
Ms. Barr-Telford: The Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics is a division of Statistics Canada, and so we fit within the statistical framework for national statistics. We are also a division that is known as the operational arm of the National Justice Statistics Initiative, NJSI. We meet regularly, twice a year, with a liaison officer's group, and we also meet with various other stakeholder communities. We do a significant amount of consultation around what are the data needs for the Canadian justice community and the Canadian public, and we decide and respond on those particular decisions.
We exist within a Statistics Canada national statistics framework. We also exist within a National Justice Statistics Initiative community where we make decisions in consultation with multiple stakeholder groups on what types of data are needed; where the data gaps are, for example as we have spoken of today; where the opportunities are to fill data gaps; and where opportunities are to move the statistical program in different ways. We do this in a very consultative fashion.
Senator Watt: I would imagine that you also do the same thing for the Aboriginal people?
Ms. Barr-Telford: It is very inclusive.
Senator Watt: Is that recorded separately from the overall?
Ms. Barr-Telford: In terms of our data with justice statistics?
Senator Watt: Yes.
Ms. Barr-Telford: As Mr. Turner said, Aboriginal identity is on some of our statistical surveys. We have a fair amount of information within our corrections program, for example, about Aboriginal identity and so forth.
Whatever information we have, we will provide to the committee, if you can give us some specific questions.
Senator Merchant: I will pose to you my whole inquiry all at once. Data for violent offences suggest most are committed without a weapon. Can you tell me what percentage of violent offences involve a weapon? What is the most common weapon used? Can you tell me what percentage of violent offences involve firearms?
Do you feel that Bill C-2, if its goal is to tackle violent crime, maybe misses the mark? Why is there so much emphasis on firearm offences?
Ms. Barr-Telford: Well, let us start with a few statistics that Mr. Turner will offer with respect to the proportion of violent crime. Most violent crimes do not involve a firearm. We will give you the breakdown.
Mr. Turner: In Canada, for 2006, 18 per cent of violent crimes involved a weapon. Of those, 2.4 per cent were firearms, 6 per cent were knives, 3 per cent were clubs or blunt instruments. The most common method for violent crime was physical force at almost 60 per cent, and then we have threats at about 15 per cent. That gives you a sense of how often weapons, physical force and threats were the main three groups.
Senator Merchant: Can you tell me whether you feel that Bill C-2 is the way to deal with violent crime, that this is a way of fighting violent crime? Do you have any opinion as to why there is so much emphasis placed on firearms?
Ms. Barr-Telford: As the director for the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, my role here is to share with you the most up-to-date information that I can for your consideration with respect to Bill C-2. That is the role I have here as a member of the statistical agency.
Senator Stratton: Welcome. You bring fascinating information. I would like, if I can, to obtain information about the city of Winnipeg. We have high statistics. I do not expect that information today, but if it is possible, please send it through the chair to us later.
I will go quickly through the slides. On slide 4, the headline is, ``Firearm-related violent crimes stable in recent years.'' Yet, when you get down to the fifth bullet, the rate of youth accused of firearm-related violent offences has increased in three of the last four years. The increase was 32 per cent since 2002, and it was at its highest point since data were available in 1988. Could you get that specific data, if at all possible, for Winnipeg?
Then we go to slide 5, ``Homicide and attempted murder rates generally declining, recent increases.'' The second bullet says that the homicide rate has increased in two of the past three years and is up 7 percent since 2003. The last bullet is the interesting one: the attempted murder rate has increased in each of the past two years, up 24 percent since 2004.
On slide 8, ``Serious assault at the highest levels in 25 years,'' the first bullet indicates that the combined rate of aggravated assaults and assaults with a weapon or causing bodily harm has increased steadily, up 57 percent since 1983; and the second bullet says that the 2006 rate was at its the highest point since these offences were created in 1983.
Slide 10 looks at ``Decrease in `other' sexual offences since 1993.'' Having two granddaughters, I am particularly concerned with this. The third bullet says that girls aged 12 to 14 years are the most vulnerable group for these offences. Even for girls over the age of 14 or younger than 12 years, you know why parents are reacting the way they are, in my view.
The last is slide 11, ``Steady decline in impaired driving offences since the early 1980s.'' The third bullet on that slide says that there are more cannabis offences now than during the 1990s, but there are fewer than there were 30 years ago. Then the fourth bullet says that there has been a sharp increase in cocaine offences over the past 5 years. That is the interesting one. Then outside the chart itself, the third bullet, and this is really the fascinating one states that the rate of cocaine offences has increased 67 per cent since 2002 and was at its highest point in 2006. That more or less substantiates the reason, in my view, for testing drivers for this offence.
If you could get any breakouts for the city of Winnipeg, I would appreciate that.
Mr. Turner: I have a quick statistic here. Winnipeg, had the second-highest firearm-related violent crime rate among major Canadian cities in 2006. Vancouver is first and Toronto is third.
The Chair: Where would Montreal be?
Mr. Turner: It would take time to sort it out.
The Chair: When you are sending us data, would you include Montreal in your answer?
Mr. Turner: Yes.
Senator Di Nino: Could we ask for the major urban centres in Canada? They are where the main problems are.
The Chair: Global numbers and breakouts for the major urban centres is probably the best way to go. If you could provide that, we would be very grateful.
Senator Fox: I wonder if you could tell me who collects the following data, whether you do it or anyone does it in the system. First would be recidivism or repeat offences in Canada under the various categories of offences that could be described today. Second, does anyone in the system do a projection of increase in prison population as a result of the implementation of a bill such as the one before us? Finally, who in the system would be in a position to tell us what the cost line of the correction systems in Canada would be? I assume there is an increased trend, and I wonder how that is progressing and whether there are indeed projections of that. Those would be the three questions.
Ms. Barr-Telford: We do have some work underway at the centre under the umbrella of recidivism. It is another situation where there are multiple different ways to cut that kind of picture. We had a study done in our corrections area that looked at reinvolvement within the corrections system after a period of time. We would be more than happy to forward that information to you. We are currently working on a project to bring together and make some decisions around a standard set of recidivism indicators, but we do not have them available.
With respect to prison population predictions, at Statistics Canada we track the past and give you the current data on what has already happened within the centre. We do not do predictions on what is happening in the future. We do have some information around the corrections area in terms of costs and so forth, and some from our police administration survey. We will provide you what we can, but Corrections Canada might be another source of information for this particular type of data.
Senator Fox: Is there someone in the system who can look at pending legislation, such as this bill, and predict what the consequences will be in terms of an increase in the number of people going to jail?
Ms. Barr-Telford: My best suggestion would be to speak to some of the other departments in the justice area.
Senator Fox: Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much. As you can see there is no end to our appetite for more information. You provide it, and we are very grateful for the time you have taken today and for the fresh floods of information you will provide expeditiously.
Our next witnesses are from the Office of the Correctional Investigator. We have before us Mr. Howard Sapers, Correctional Investigator of Canada, and Mr. Ed McIsaac, Executive Director.
Welcome, gentlemen; we are happy to have you with us today. Mr. Sapers, we all have your brief, so in the interest of time we would appreciate your focusing on the content rather than on the details. That said, we are interested to hear what you have to say, after which we will ask questions. Please proceed.
Howard Sapers, Correctional Investigator of Canada, Office of the Correctional Investigator: Thank you for the opportunity to meet with the committee. I will restrict my comments as much as I can to the substantive issues raised in the brief. I look forward to your questions.
It is important to state at the outset that the Office of the Correctional Investigator, OCI, is an important expression of fundamental values in the Canadian system — values of accountability and transparency and openness. As an independent ombudsman, I have a unique ability to look at the system in its totality and bring observations on both individual complaints and systemic issues to the attention of the Correctional Service of Canada and Parliament. The OCI was established in 1973 — we are in our thirty-fifth year — and contains a tremendous body of collective experience.
As the committee reviews Bill C-2, it is important that you are aware of some of the concerns that my office has raised regarding the program capacity of the Correctional Service of Canada. Correctional programming is offered to federal offenders to facilitate their timely and safe reintegration into the community. I will turn to the issue of programming directly, but I want to make a couple of brief observations on the proposed legislation first.
I strongly believe that evidenced-based policy is essential to guide any legislative proposal. This is of particular importance when dealing with issues of public safety. I concur with the analysis found in the legislative summary issued with Bill C-2, and I will highlight three points from it. First, existing research generally does not support the use of mandatory minimum sentences for the purpose of deterrence. Second, incarcerating offenders for longer periods results in increased prison costs, which are not necessarily offset by any reductions in crime rates and recidivism. Third, mandatory minimum sentences disproportionately affect Aboriginal offenders.
This last point cannot be overlooked: last year, my office estimated that the overall incarceration rate for Aboriginal Canadians was 1,024 per 100,000, or almost nine times higher than that for non-Aboriginals. Bill C-2 should be analyzed carefully to determine if its provisions will make this bad situation even worse.
In summary, I believe that Bill C-2 will increase jail and prison populations in this country and will further increase the burden of already inadequate capacity to provide programming to federal offenders in a timely fashion.
I will turn directly to the issue of access to timely delivery of programs in federal corrections. We know that evidenced-based programming and treatment can significantly reduce reoffending, and I praise the Correctional Service of Canada for endorsing such programming and treatment approaches. Correctional Service of Canada's 2006- 07 report on plans and priorities, tabled in Parliament, stated:
CSC's correctional approach is evidence-based and grounded in research. Criminological research repeatedly demonstrates that releasing offenders in a gradual and controlled manner to the community, when it is safe to do so and with proper supervision and support, is the best way to ensure short- and long-term public safety. Offenders who have benefited from targeted interventions are less likely to commit new crime.
This approach was recently endorsed by the panel established by the Minister of Public Safety to provide him with independent expert advice. In its report entitled A Roadmap to Strengthening Public Safety, the CSC review panel specifically acknowledged that implementing research-based correctional programs, paired with evaluation and accreditation, is the best approach and should be continued.
Upon admission to a penitentiary, every inmate is assessed and a correctional plan prescribing programming is put into place. Indeed, the Correctional Service of Canada has some cutting edge programs and initiatives related to education, employment, substance abuse, living skills, et cetera. These programs are designed to deal with specific criminogenic factors. They have proven to have significantly decreased reoffending when program participation has been completed.
The Correctional Service of Canada continues to make progress in the area of risk assessment, either by enhancing existing tools or by developing new tools to assess risk and needs of various segments of its prison population. However, this progress has been too slow, and there is evidence that some tools continue to impose higher than necessary security classifications. This results in some offenders, particularly women and Aboriginals, being unnecessarily placed in higher security institutions than the situation warrants.
In spite of some good programs and limited progress in addressing the validity and reliability of its risk and needs assessments tools, my office is gravely concerned about the decreasing ability of the Correctional Service of Canada to prepare offenders in a thorough and timely fashion for conditional release consideration. Limited program capacity affects the ability of offenders to carry out their correctional plans, thereby delaying their safe reintegration into the community.
A significant number of these delays relate directly to the Correctional Service of Canada's inability to provide the required assessment and treatment before an offender's scheduled parole hearing dates. Now, as the CSC faces increasing financial constraints, the situation has become critical. More offenders will return unprepared to the community, where they will be supervised for a shorter period. For the great majority of offenders, timely, gradual and supported reintegration is the most effective way to enhance public safety.
To address some of the issues associated with timely case preparation and access to programs, a joint working group involving the CSC, the National Parole Board and the Office of the Correctional Investigator was established. This group reported in December 2004 and made several recommendations to facilitate timely conditional release reviews. It also recommended ensuring that offenders appearing before the board received the assistance and programs they need for their eventual safe reintegration into the community.
To date, there is little evidence that this situation has improved. On the contrary, according to the National Parole Board, the proportion of federal releases from institutions to statutory release where there was no prior parole has increased from a low of about two thirds in 2002 to about three quarters in 2007.
In the last six years, the CSC's corporate data indicate that while the prison population has increased, the level of programming delivered has decreased by 26 per cent. With a budget of nearly $1.8 billion, the CSC allocates only about $27 million for core programming, or about 1.5 per cent of its total budget.
We support the Correctional Service of Canada's efforts to secure resources to improve timely access to a full range of effective offender programs and treatment. In my last annual report, I identified the following specific barriers to reintegration in the areas of access to programs: long waiting lists for programs in most regions, resulting in programs being provided late in the offender's sentence, well beyond his or her parole eligibility dates; waivers, postponements and withdrawals of applications for National Parole Board hearings because of lack of program access; a shortage of program facilitators and program officers, especially those with the skill sets required to deliver Aboriginal-specific programming; limited access to programs in the community, especially for women and Aboriginal offenders; limited or no anti-gang programming in most institutions, meaning that, by default, reliance on segregation is quickly becoming the norm in this area; delays in the evaluation and national implementation of Aboriginal-specific programming; and a chronic shortage of Aboriginal-specific core programming in maximum security institutions, which means that Aboriginal offenders cannot carry out their correctional plans and transfer to lower security institutions where the programming may be available.
I will take this opportunity to expand on this last point by providing a concrete example that illustrates well the kind of impact inadequate risk assessment tools and access to timely programming can have on Aboriginal offenders.
The combination of over-classification and lack of Aboriginal programming best illustrates how systemic barriers can hinder offender reintegration. Aboriginal offenders are over-classified because the service does not yet have valid risk assessment tools that are culturally responsive. As a result, Aboriginal offenders are disproportionately and inappropriately placed in maximum security institutions, which have limited or no access to core programs designed to meet their needs.
Our review of programming at several institutions shows that too few core programs designed to meet the needs of Aboriginals are provided to meet that demand. This all too typical scenario at least partially explains why the reintegration of Aboriginal offenders is lagging so significantly behind the reintegration of other offenders.
In conclusion, there is no denying that the CSC is committed to making genuine progress in the development of reliable and valid risk and need assessment tools and to increasing its capacity to deliver programs. However, the allocated resources to fulfil its mandate of preparing offenders for timely and safe reintegration are seriously lacking. More resources are currently needed, and this has been acknowledged by both the independent panel of experts mandated to report back to the minister and by the CSC itself.
This office remains concerned that the existing situation has negative public safety consequences and that increases in prison populations without new resources will only further exacerbate this situation.
I will be happy to elaborate on any of those points and answer your questions. Thank you.
The Chair: That is quite an extraordinary mass of information conveyed in a very short time. We thank you very much for that, Mr. Sapers.
Before I go to questioning, could I ask you a question about the process once one is caught up in the system? As I understand what you just said, if I find myself in a maximum security institution, I have to complete some programming before I can be sent to a lower security institution where I can get better programming; is that the way it works?
Mr. Sapers: Once your assessment period is finished, which can take six months, and you are pen-placed, your access to programming will be determined by where you are placed. If you are in maximum security, your access to programs may be diminished for many reasons.
Most offenders are housed in medium security, and most programming, at least on paper, should be available at that level. Quite often, we are finding that it is a vicious cycle. You are placed in maximum security because you are considered to have high risk and high need. You do not have access to programs that specifically deal with that risk and need, so your security status cannot be lowered to get into a minimum or medium security, where the programs are that would address that need.
That is one explanation for why you are seeing so many offenders spend so much of their time in custody; fewer are being released conditionally on parole, and more are being released at their statutory release date. Mr. McIsaac may want to add to that.
The Chair: Perhaps Mr. McIsaac can respond to it when he responds to some other senator.
Senator Stratton: I appreciate the statistics you are giving us with respect to incarcerated folks. We never can seem to get a handle on how to manage this properly, no matter what the government of the day is.
The concern that I have, which has been talked about, is on the one hand the increased incarceration rates that will likely occur with this bill, and on the other hand, the increase in crime in specific areas like violent crime, for example, which has gone up 32 per cent since 2002. You see the public on one side really concerned about the dramatic increase. The attempted murder rate increased in each of the past two years, up 24 per cent since 2004. You really have to say how you address this seemingly dramatic increase in crime in specific areas: violent crime, attempted murder, youth violent crime. You cannot sit back and do nothing. For want of a better word, I call it a three-legged stool. In the old days that was a milking stool. I do not like to use the term ``three-prong'' because it could be deemed to be not particularly nice. I am trying to address these three legs of a stool in Bill C-2. One is that you try to help people, which I think the government has attempted to do by spending more money in that area.
From your point of view, it does not seem to be enough. How do you define, or what can we do to say that we have enough? I know what your answer will be. It will be when the rates drop. However, this is not a short-term event. This will last for a long time, because it has been around for a long time. Education is the first step along the way to get these folks educated before they hit jail.
If you were looking at the three-legged stool approach to this and you were picking one or two areas where you think it would have a real effect on incarceration and the dramatic rates of increase in crime, what would you recommend?
Mr. Sapers: I am feeling a little torn. There are many ways to address the several issues that you raise. I will try not to rush through a whole bunch of things. I will limit my response, if you do not mind, to the role of the Correctional Service of Canada in providing the kinds of evidence-based programs that reduce the likelihood of return to crime.
Incarceration is the last resort. There have been many purposes expressed as legitimate in sentencing someone to incarceration. Deterrence is certainly one of those purposes.
Once somebody is in a penitentiary, it is said that they are sent to the penitentiary as punishment, not for punishment. In other words, everything that happens from the day they enter the penitentiary forward is geared towards their reintegration and their rehabilitation. The emphasis is not on making the experience of incarceration more punitive. The emphasis is on using the least restrictive option necessary to manage the risk that the offender presents to himself, both in the institution and eventually in the community.
The emphasis should be on the CSC's working from day one to provide, at the earliest opportunity, that array of evidence-based programs that will be effective.
In a world of competing resources, the challenge is how to manage the right balance between the dramatic costs of security — that is, making sure there are four solid walls around a prison — and the very necessary costs of providing treatment and programming. That treatment and programming include the appropriate mental health interventions at the right time as well. That combination of good assessment, early access to programs and an emphasis on moving towards gradual and supervised release seems to be the best combination, according to world experience and research. I hope that addresses at least part of your question.
Senator Carstairs: Mr. Sapers, you do not paint a pretty picture. The bill before us would directly increase by a considerable number, I think, those who would be incarcerated. We have had numbers as high as almost 3,000 people.
You are telling us that the people presently incarcerated are not getting the appropriate programs, that many of them are being released close to the end of their mandatory sentence and thus will not be released on parole. Therefore, they have a much higher rate of recidivism because they do not have the programs in place in order to make it possible to reintegrate within the community.
If we take the additional numbers of people who will be incarcerated because of this bill and the additional numbers who may be recidivists as a result of the failure of the present programs to serve their needs, what kind of numbers could we actually be looking at in a few years in terms of our prison population — and at what kind of costs?
Mr. Sapers: The projections have been done on increase in prison populations by the CSC and the Department of Public Safety as well as by people external to these agencies. There is a range of predictions. I think most of the predictions agree that there will be an increase.
Right now the Correctional Service of Canada is facing some critical physical limitations. There tends to be a bottleneck in medium security institutions, which is increasing use of segregation. There are issues to do with double bunking, and at the same time there is actually empty cell space in some minimum security institutions. Therefore, the system is not working very well now to maximize the capacity of the system.
My own sense is that any legislation that will see an increase in prison population will make that situation worse and will further burden the system. That burden then becomes a real challenge in making available the resources targeted to those most in need.
It is really a matter of recognizing that the system does have finite capacity. If you are going to add a greater demand on that system, you have to either expand the capacity or abandon the notion of proper correctional programming and treatment. You will not be able to do both.
Senator Carstairs: My second question has to do with dangerous offenders. This proposed legislation would significantly ratchet up the number of people who would become eligible for a dangerous offender designation.
We were told last evening by the director of the Elizabeth Fry Society that the two women designated as dangerous offenders had been guilty of only one offence outside of the correctional system. The additional offences that put them into the dangerous offender category had occurred in prison. Do you have any statistical data on how many dangerous offenders will get that designation because of activities not out in the public but in the prisons of this country? Is that a direct result of inappropriate programming for these people within the prisons themselves?
Mr. Sapers: I have not turned my attention directly to either of those two questions. Impressionistically, we know that there is increasing use of segregation; there is increasing evidence that people are being held at higher security levels for longer periods of time, and we know, as well, that this is particularly true for women. That combination of things that we know would lead me to support some of the conclusions you suggested in your question. However, I do not have the data. We have not studied it. In fact, one of our difficulties is related to information and the way that information is collected by the CSC, the timeliness of that information and the analysis that the CSC does.
Ed McIsaac, Executive Director, Office of the Correctional Investigator: An area of concern for our office for a number of years has been the level of violence within the institutions, inmate-upon-inmate assaults. Those numbers are not dropping. As well, we know that an increase in the population will increase the number of offenders that are double-bunked and will probably create a further environment that will foster additional violence within the institution. The scenario is not very encouraging, as you suggested, but the data that we have or that we have access to that is collected by the Correctional Service of Canada is a little scant in these areas. At the moment, not much analysis is applied to the data.
The Chair: If I am designated a dangerous offender, do I automatically go to a maximum security institution?
Mr. McIsaac: The legislation as it currently sits would say no. During the assessment period of two to three months, the individual circumstances of the inmate are taken into consideration in determining the security level. In reality, those who are coming in serving an indeterminate sentence, whether because of a dangerous offender designation or a murder charge, automatically end up in maximum security institutions for a period of time.
Senator Oliver: My questions all relate to Black inmates, Black offenders, Black prisoners. The office of the Correctional Investigator has been in operation since 1973, and you deal with high-risk and high-need inmates. One of the people who presented here yesterday gave a statistic that, in the United States, more than 33 per cent of the people who are inmates are Black. I have been told that there are some prisons in Canada where more than 50 per cent of the inmates are either Aboriginal or Black. I have been told that there is one prison in Montreal where 60 per cent of the inmates are Black. You have told us that systemic barriers can hinder offender reintegration. Today, when I heard your presentation and your response to the questions, I did not hear one reference to Black inmates. I find that curious, and I would like you to tell me what your research tells you about the ethnic make-up of people who are in prison in Canada.
Mr. McIsaac: I should perhaps start by indicating that our office neither does research nor necessarily collects data. We are a very small ombuds operation. We have fewer than two dozen employees. We cover the 56 institutions.
While we are visiting institutions, and there are a number of federal institutions that have Black inmate associations, we ensure that our staff meet with those groups. The difficulties or concerns raised are then brought to the attention of the warden, and hopefully resolutions are reached.
I share your concern that there is not more focus within the data that is collected, either by the group that were here in advance of us or by the Correctional Service of Canada itself with regard to other ethnic groups. The focus of the data that is collected is Aboriginal offenders. It has been a long-standing concern. They represent federally approximately 20 per cent of the inmate population, and they represent less than 3 per cent of the general population.
I can tell you that the data that I have seen, unanalyzed and raw, would indicate that the number of Black offenders in federal institutions has increased over the last decade.
Senator Oliver: From what to what?
Mr. McIsaac: I do not know the numbers. Those numbers would belong to the Correctional Service of Canada.
Senator Oliver: You must have some idea of the overall incarceration rate of Blacks in Canada, because, after all, you are the Correctional Investigator of Canada.
Mr. McIsaac: I am sorry. We do not.
Mr. Sapers: We have not had the ability to analyze the data at the level that you are asking.
Senator Oliver: Do you think it is significant to know this kind of information?
Mr. Sapers: I think it would be extremely helpful.
I can tell you that, according to the latest reports from the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, the diversity of the federal offender population generally speaking mirrors the increased diversity in the Canadian population.
In 1993-94, 7 per cent of the offender population was self-identified as a visible minority. By 2006-07, that had doubled to 14 per cent. That is not specific to Black inmates, but that is all visible minorities. In comparison, the growth in Aboriginal offenders has gone, as Mr. McIsaac noted, to the point where about one in five federal inmates is of Aboriginal descent. It is just under 20 per cent.
Senator Oliver: I understand that figure. I was asking about Blacks, but you do not have any information.
Mr. Sapers: I raise that only by way of indicating why our focus has been there. I accept the criticism regarding our lack of knowledge of the Black offender profile in Canada.
Senator Oliver: Would 20 per cent of inmates in Canada be Black?
Mr. McIsaac: I do not believe the number would be that high. Senator, I will undertake, within the next two days, the first part of next week, to get information to you on the number of Black offenders in the population.
I might as well note that the Correctional Service of Canada entered into a contract with Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Prisons to look at women's facilities about two years ago. One of the recommendations that came out of that review, which was focused on the women offenders' institution in the Ontario region, was that they begin to develop on an ongoing basis a racial profile of their population to monitor whether or not there were increases and whether, if there was a need to bring specific programming to those groups, it was initiated in a timely fashion. The recommendation, to the best of my knowledge, has not been acted on yet, but I will include that recommendation with the material we forward to you.
Senator Oliver: Thank you.
Senator Watt: On the Aboriginal front, if you have the information, could you break it down? When you say Aboriginal, you are taking into account the First Nations, the Metis and the Inuit. You are speaking overall. Do you have any sense of the breakdown of that information for Nunavik, Nunavut, Labrador and the Northwest Territories?
Mr. Sapers: I can answer you, albeit at too superficial of a level. As of March 2007, 68 per cent of federal Aboriginal offenders were identified as North American Indian, 28 per cent were identified as Metis and 4 per cent as Inuit.
Senator Watt: Can you forward that information to us?
Mr. Sapers: We can undertake to find a more detailed breakdown.
Senator Watt: You have highlighted in your brief a lack of access to programming. I do not believe that you are speaking only of programming in the community, but the programming in the penitentiary is also a problem.
Mr. McIsaac: Yes, very much so.
Senator Watt: What is the cause of that? Are you saying that the Aboriginal person in prison is not enjoying the same kind of program that everyone else is? If that is the case, what is the problem there?
Mr. Sapers: My office looked at a whole variety of what we called correctional outcomes, which include length of time served before conditional release, percentage of offender population released at statutory release, length of time served at maximum as opposed to medium or minimum security, length of time in segregation and frequency of return to penitentiary after conditional release for parole violation. Those are some examples of correctional outcomes. On every one of those correctional outcomes, Aboriginal offenders fared worse than non-Aboriginal offenders.
Senator Watt: Why is that?
Mr. Sapers: We identified a number of systemic barriers that we believe contribute to all of those negative outcomes. Those barriers include such things as inappropriate risk assessment tools and procedures and decision-making that seemed to focus on the same characteristics that the offenders came into the penitentiary with. In other words, whatever the issues were that contributed to their criminality seemed to carry more weight or burden them through their correctional experience.
A couple of years ago, when my report was released, we described that as systemic discrimination, and the Correctional Service of Canada responded by developing and putting into place a new strategic plan for Aboriginal offenders. We are still waiting to see the full implementation of that plan as well as the effects of that plan. Parts of it have to do with the implementation of Aboriginal-specific programming, revision of those assessment tools so that they are culturally appropriate, and the hiring and retention of more Aboriginal staff.
Mr. McIsaac: There has been a great deal of activity by the CSC over the last decade in terms of introducing Aboriginal programs and developing action plans and strategic plans. However, at the end of the day we have not noticed any difference or a closing of the gap between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal offenders.
On a very general level, if you take the offender population, including both those who are on conditional release and those who are incarcerated, for the non-Aboriginal population, the breakdown is 58 per cent incarcerated and 40 per cent on average under supervision within the community. In contrast, 70 per cent of the Aboriginal offender population is incarcerated and only 30 per cent is on the street under conditional release. That number has remained relatively constant over the last decade.
Until we begin to see a closing of that gap, we are not going to be in a position where we can definitively say that the availability of programming and the options and opportunities afforded the Aboriginal population specific to their needs is equivalent or equal to those that are being provided to the general population.
We also see a 10 per cent gap in the percentage of offenders who are placed at minimum security. We also see it, as Mr. Sapers was saying, in the revocation rates for those coming back who are on conditional release, as well as those who are waiving their parole for a variety of reasons. However, within the Aboriginal offender population, the waiving of one's right to appear before the parole board for either not having access to or not having completed a program is much higher.
Senator Watt: Do you believe that Bill C-2, if it goes forward, will make things worse? The situation is bad enough now, but there is a very good possibility that things will get worse, knowing that it is not only in the penitentiary that the programs need to be accessible to those people, but the program also does not exist for integrating them into the community. Do I understand that correctly?
Mr. McIsaac: If the federal prison population increases, the scenario that we have pointed out will worsen. The federal population has increased over the last two to three years. The most significant increases have been found within the female offender population, those who are suffering from mental illness and the Aboriginal population. I would assume that if the increase continues, we will continue to see a higher increase within those three groups.
Senator Watt: You mentioned, on page 11, limited access to the programs in the community, especially for women and Aboriginal offenders. You put women in the same category as Aboriginal offenders. Could you enlighten me as to what is happening here? Why are women in this category? It is bad enough for the Aboriginals, but why women too? I am talking about the treatments.
Mr. Sapers: There is a well-documented shortage of program opportunities for women. Those program opportunities include access to institutional employment, vocational training, access to mental health services, et cetera. This has been reviewed by the CSC several times. There have been several attempts to fix it. There is a deputy commissioner for women who is part of the executive management team of the Correctional Service of Canada. They continue to struggle to meet the program needs of women while that population is growing.
Mr. McIsaac: I will go back to what I said before regarding the increase in the population. Part of the difficulty with access is that if there is a substantial increase — and we have seen that within the women offender population over the last four or five years — it adds stress not only to the programming inside but also to the accommodation and the availability of programming on the outside.
The Aboriginal women offender population is even more striking than the male population. I mentioned earlier that it was somewhere around 20 per cent for the male population. It is well in excess of 30 per cent for the female population.
Senator Andreychuk: I wanted to pursue the mental health issues, the Aboriginal issues and the issues for women, but I think you have dealt with them.
You have developed the assessment tools and the risk evaluation processes for Aboriginals but they are yet to be fully tested. Has the CSC involved Aboriginal leaders and community leaders in the development of those tools?
Mr. Sapers: The Correctional Service of Canada is in the process of looking at a variety of its assessment tools and its risk evaluation processes. On the one hand, they have a legislated requirement to do two things: they must involve the offender population in consultation regarding significant changes, and they must have an Aboriginal advisory committee. The Aboriginal advisory committee has been dormant for several years. There is a commitment to restructure that committee, and I would hope that would happen quickly.
Involving offenders in a consultative process requires constant vigilance to ensure that it happens. Beyond that, I dare not speak for the CSC in regards to what specifically they have undertaken for the Aboriginal people across the country.
Senator Andreychuk: I understand the pressure you are talking about, for example the lack of programming, in particular for women offenders. This is not as a result of Bill C-2; it is the result of all of the legislation that has led to the incarceration state. You are saying that Bill C-2 will be the added load that you are not sure of.
Do we have enough programming at the right place to hit this philosophy that you have said will give the offender some tools so that when he comes out he will not reoffend? That is the question that runs throughout your presentation. It has been, I think, a broad philosophy. I am shortening my question because I am mindful of the chair cutting me off if I go on too long to explain it.
Alternatively, given that certain offenders in our society will be placed in prison — and there is a similar situation in the United States — if there are not the programs, they will still be released. You are showing that trend. The program has been to get them ready and to give them the skills they require so that they do not reoffend. Many offenders say, ``I go back to the same gang that I was in before and to the same house that I used to live in. The same pressures are on me.'' Should there not be a rethinking about what reintegration into the community means, looking at job skills and at a different way of reintegrating these people into the community than what we have up to this point?
Mr. Sapers: Yes, but let me qualify that. The role of the CSC is to manage the sentence and, hopefully, prepare offenders for safe release into the community. To the extent that offenders are released with periods of supervision, there is a fair bit of emphasis on building that link from institution to community. Parole officers play a key role in ensuring that appropriate resources are accessed by offenders once they are released. At some point, however, the responsibility of the CSC ends. That is usually with warrant expiry, but there are some exceptions.
You then raised a much broader issue about the need for a national strategy for corrections and federal-provincial- territorial discussions around linkages between mental health, physical health and social services, education, and so on. Thankfully, that is well beyond my mandate. That is not to say, however, that it is not critically important. I think you have identified that.
Senator Andreychuk: You have correctly pointed out that our services are within the correction ambit. There is a thinking that if we are not going to get the resources — and I have been around 40 years on this; we are always short of the resources and we are always having a new plan that will work — then, when the population comes out of prison, if they are completely off their sentence, then they are citizens at large like the rest of us.
What are we doing on the employment front and on the mental health front? Perhaps it is a different look at the entire strategy.
Senator Di Nino: First, I would like to remind us that Minister Day initiated the review referred to in your comments, which does recommend increased resources in the areas that you have expressed concern about and have identified, to relieve these long-standing issues which really have not been addressed for a very long time. Knowing Minister Day, I suspect he will work very hard to succeed. Hopefully, you will have a different view when we next meet, because I think he will convince his colleagues in cabinet to provide these resources.
I would like to talk about the penitentiary population as well. Is it correct that the population of our jails is composed of 75 per cent to 80 per cent sort of non-serious offenders and maybe 20 per cent to 25 per cent of what we would call serious offenders? In other words, the category of serious offender is not a major portion of the population of the jails.
Mr. Sapers: Depending on how you want to define those categories, I can tell you that between 1 per cent and 3 per cent of the federal offender population are considered to be the highest need, highest risk. From there, you can come up with a number of ways to define risk groups in populations. There is a growing reality in terms of federal corrections as well that offenders, although they may be convicted of violent crimes, tend to get shorter periods of time under sentence. You have this double difficulty of people with violence in their background and with a high criminogenic need having, in some cases, shorter sentences in which to meet that need.
We also have the experience of another population inside federal penitentiaries that is increasing: offenders who are 50 years of age and older. Because of the impact of other legislation and sentencing practices, we are seeing a growth in older offenders as well. An interesting dynamic is happening in Canadian penitentiaries with a churn of relatively younger offenders going through more quickly and a growing population of offenders aging while they are in prison.
Senator Di Nino: This bill is really talking about criminals who have committed serious, violent and weapons-related offences primarily. They are not a majority of the people who inhabit the jails. As you said, if this bill does become law — hopefully, when it becomes law — it may add to that population. I guess I question whether the dire predictions of adding thousands and thousands of people are true. The problem that you have in reintegration is a problem that deals with all of the population, most of which would not be impacted or affected by this bill. Am I correct?
Mr. McIsaac: Yes, you are. I am not in the business of making predictions as to the end result. Part of what makes it difficult to give a definitive response to the earlier question you posed is the division between the federal and provincial levels with regard to the sentences. Those serving two years and beyond end up in the federal system, and those serving less than two years end up in the provincial system. I do not know where the increase necessarily will fall, although you indicate quite correctly that the legislation is directed toward those who are committing violent offences or those who are using weapons in the committing of offences. We can be fairly sure that the majority of those people will end up in the federal system with a sentence of two years and beyond. The impact that the federal system will be faced with is much of the scenario that we had drawn earlier. If you do not have the programming available, you end up causing the individual to spend a longer portion of his sentence inside, which in and of itself adds to the increase in the population.
If you had someone who could get access to programming appear before the National Parole Board and perhaps get out in two years, if that programming is not available he or she may very well still be there a year later being released on statutory release.
Senator Di Nino: Reintegration is still a problem that is mainly created by the large inmate population and not necessarily by the smaller number that may be coming through as a result of this bill. I think you agree with me there.
Mr. McIsaac: Yes, I do.
Senator Joyal: On that issue, if we were wise in promoting this proposed legislation, when the minister came to testify in support of it he should have been in a position to announce that there will be an increase in financial support to the CSC to offset the negative impact that the will bring into the system once it has been enacted.
I do not see how we will be safer after this bill is passed if at the same time we are not addressing the additional pressure that will be put on the system. On the contrary, as you have stated, people will be released on statutory terms and will not have had the capacity to use the tools to reintegrate and become good citizens. The end result will be additional pressures on the prison system and on CSC and the creation of additional numbers of people less prepared to reintegrate into normal life.
If we want to serve the objective of having safer streets, that should have been part of the announcement at the same time.
Mr. Sapers: The concern that my office has is that there is a shortage of capacity at present with the current population to deliver programs in a timely way to increase the chances for safe reintegration into the community. If nothing else changes except that there is an increase in the population of offenders going to penitentiary, that problem will only become worse. The system has to build capacity, or another solution has to be found if the resources are not made available.
We are already seeing significant barriers to safe reintegration for offenders, and that is with the status quo population. Any public policy change that would increase that population will only make that worse if there are not new resources brought to bear on the problem.
Senator Joyal: Do you have any idea of the level of increase of resources we are talking about here?
Mr. Sapers: I do not. That question would be most appropriately put to the Correctional Service of Canada.
Senator Joyal: You do not have the figure now.
Mr. Sapers: I do not.
Senator Joyal: You state on page 8 of your brief: ``Now, as the Correctional Service faces increasing financial constraints, the situation has become critical.'' In your estimation, what additional funding would be needed in the Correctional Service of Canada to alleviate some of those constraints that you recognize exist in the system?
Mr. Sapers: We have not done any cost estimation. It is well beyond the capacity of my office to do that kind of costing exercise. We know that the CSC has been engaged in costing exercises. We know there is a price tag attached to many of the priorities of the SCS, including the provision of adequate mental health services, the development of Aboriginal-specific programs, et cetera.
The current budget of the CSC stands at about $1.8 billion. The CSC has needs right now in terms of just holding place, in terms of infrastructure, the physical buildings, et cetera. The costs are not inconsiderable to meet increased demand.
Senator Joyal: Mr. McIsaac, do you want to add anything to that? You seemed to be reflecting when Mr. Sapers was talking.
Mr. McIsaac: I was reflecting on the fact that our office is really not in a position to give estimates on the cost of meeting either the program demands or the infrastructure rust-out, as the service is currently calling it. The expert committee that was commissioned by the minister to review the service looked into some of those areas. I would expect answers to some of your questions may very well be found there.
Senator Joyal: To your knowledge, there have been no figures estimated roughly on the increased needs that the implementation of the bill as it stands would bring into the system?
Mr. McIsaac: I am not aware of any. I have not seen an estimate of that nature.
Senator Joyal: Have you, Mr. Sapers?
Mr. Sapers: I would be surprised if the Correctional Service of Canada or the Department of Public Safety have not done their projections along the line of your question, but I do not have that information.
Senator Baker: I have a very short question that may lead to one other question. I recall the legislation upon which your office was legislated. As I recall, your mandate covers the complaints of federal offenders. It excludes those persons who are in a federal jail for sometimes years without receiving a trial or determination at trial, who are more or less left in the lock-up awaiting trial. This bill will increase those numbers because of the denial of bail, in that the requirement would be that you cannot get bail if you abscond or if there is a danger that you will abscond, or if you are a danger to society, the second requirement, in that you may repeat an offence. If you are a repeater, you run the risk of never getting bail prior to trial. The third one is the strength of Crown's case. Do you cover those persons who are in federal institutions who cannot be classified as offenders? They are alleged offenders.
Mr. Sapers: The legislation is precise in terms of the mandate, and that is to deal with federally sentenced offenders, those offenders serving a partial sentence or being supervised in the community by the Correctional Service of Canada. I believe the population of accused that you are referring to are held in provincially run remand centres. As inmates in a provincial remand centre or pretrial centre, they would typically have access to a provincial ombudsman as opposed to access to my office.
Your question also suggests some other issues in terms of what I understand to be the picture in provincial corrections. I am certainly not expert in any way in provincial matters, but I am told by provincial heads of correction that in almost every province and territory, the majority of new admissions to provincial correctional facilities are, in fact, in remand centres. They are people who are not sentenced or convicted yet but are awaiting trial or sentencing. There is a real growth in that population; therefore, any discussion about the overall impact on Canadians of any legislative change has to focus on that jurisdiction question — namely, what the impact will be at a provincial level and then what would the sentence impact be for federal corrections. Again, that suggests the need for further discussion around a national strategy on corrections. However, we do not deal with that pretrial population.
Senator Baker: These people are in the lock-up as compared to a penitentiary. In lock-up, you could be there with a half a dozen people in the same room. You do not have private toilet facilities. If you are a repeat offender on trafficking, for example, or if you are a repeat offender in home invasion, which carries a term of an average of eight years, break and enter in homes, you end up there, and you are given a two for one after. When you are sentenced, you are given that because you are in despicable conditions where there is no training or anything else.
As I read it, your office does not cover that. There are no programs. There is just nothing for people in the lock-up who are unfortunate enough to be judged as having a good possibility of reoffending if they are released.
The Chair: I conclude from what you have been telling us, but I would like you to tell me if I am wrong, that a plausible scenario is that the prison population will rise. If programming does not rise, more people will be released when we have to let them go without having had access to programming, which makes them more likely to reoffend, which creates a snowball effect and boosts the population again. Is that fair?
Mr. Sapers: Senator, you do not have it wrong.
The Chair: I do not have it wrong.
My second question is about the statement at the bottom of page 9 in the English version of your brief, Mr. Sapers, which concludes what to me may be the most staggering single statistic you provided: in the last six years, while the prison population has increased, the level of programming delivered has actually decreased by 26 per cent.
Obviously, I want CSC to tell us about that when they arrive. However, in the meantime, to prepare for that, I wonder if you have idea why that has happened. Is it the result of a policy decision, or is it because programming is treated as a residual after we pay for leaky roofs and more food because we have more prisoners? How does it happen?
Mr. Sapers: I can give you some impressions. In part, it is an artifact of the cycle we were talking about. If more programming is available later in the sentence or at lower security levels, but increasingly people are being held for longer periods of their sentence at higher security levels and they simply do not have access, especially at the time in their sentence when they would normally have access, the program may not be available for them. Some institutions have maybe two thirds or even three quarters of their program office or positions either vacant or filled by only acting individuals. There are some institutions that report program completion rates as low as 30 per cent or 35 per cent for education and even lower in other kinds of program initiatives. We have asked institutions what their waiting list is for Aboriginal-specific programs on substance abuse relapse prevention or on sex abuse relapse prevention, and they will tell us that they have no waiting list. However, when we ask the next question, we find that the reason they have no waiting list is that the program is no longer offered. That is how they have eliminated the waiting list.
I ask CSC all the time about access to programs and why they cannot seem to get ahead of that critical issue.
The Chair: We will have to ask them, too.
Thank you very much, Mr. Sapers and Mr. McIsaac. It has been a most interesting and informative session, and we are very grateful to you.
The committee adjourned.