By Joan Ruzsa
I remember when the Harper government first
introduced a bill (then called C-15) to create mandatory minimum
sentences for drug crimes. I was struck by something when reading the
parliamentary debates on the issue. Not only did the opposition parties
point to numerous position papers that discounted the efficacy of
mandatory minimums, but even the Conservatives' own research clearly
showed that harsher sentences have no deterrent effect on crime.
Governments and corporations commission studies all the time, and are
usually able to get the results massaged in a way that reinforces their
position. How bad must an idea be when even the people you hand-pick to
study it can't find anything worthwhile in it? I remember feeling
confident that there was no way the Conservatives would be successful in
getting this bill passed.
And initially C-15 died in parliament,
but the federal government continued to doggedly pursue it, along with a
number of other fear-based "law-and-order" initiatives. Harper and his
people kept telling us that we needed to be "tough on crime" to protect
our communities from increasing numbers of dangerous people. The only
problem with that argument is that both the crime rate and the crime
severity index have been steadily dropping in Canada since 1994.
Then,
in the summer of 2010, Stockwell Day informed reporters that the
government's $9 billion proposed expenditure to build new prisons was
necessitated by a rise in "unreported crime." Of course he was laughed
out of the room, but a week later a smug article appeared in the Toronto
Sun crowing that Day's assertion had been backed up by polling data.
Even if that were true, "unreported" crime, by virtue of being
unreported, does not end up in the court or correctional systems, and so
has no bearing on prison populations.
Self-Fulfilling Prophecy
So
what do you do when you have a factually insupportable crime agenda?
You create a self-fulfilling prophecy. Even before Harper won a
"majority" in May 2011, his government was already putting their plan to
fill the jails into action.
In November of 2009, they passed a
law getting rid of the 2-for-1 credit for people in remand. Up until
that point, judges had the discretion to reduce people's sentences by
two days for every day they spent in pre-trial custody. This was meant
in some small way to compensate for the horrible conditions people had
to endure, sometimes for months at a time, while awaiting trial, mostly
because they were not in a financial position to post bail. By
eliminating the 2-for-1 credit, the government clearly showed its
indifference to the inhumane treatment of people who have not been
convicted of any crime, in a country whose judicial system has a
presumption of innocence and enshrines the right to a "speedy trial."
Then
in March of 2011, with the support of the Bloc Quebecois, the
Conservatives passed Bill C-59, abolishing Accelerated Parole Reviews.
These Parole Reviews had allowed people convicted of non-violent
offences to get day parole after serving 1/6 of their sentence, and full
parole after serving 1/3 of their sentence.
By eliminating the
2-for-1 credit and Accelerated Parole Reviews, the Harper government
guaranteed that people would spend more time behind bars.
Creating More Criminals
And
then of course there is Bill C-10, inaccurately titled "The Safe
Streets and Communities Act." Introduced in parliament on September
20th, C-10 brings together nine crime bills that the government was
unsuccessful in passing previously. This omnibus bill, if passed as it
is written now, will ensure that our prisons are full to overflowing,
thus justifying Harper's construction plans. However, the prisons will
not be packed because there is more actual crime happening, but because
the government is criminalizing more communities and behaviours, as well
as net-widening to create more incarcerable offences. They are also
trying to enact legislation that will make it harder for prisoners to
get out of jail, and easier for law enforcement to throw people back
into jail.
On the front end, we have mandatory minimums, changes
to the youth justice act, and the elimination of house arrest (also
called conditional sentencing) for many crimes. Mandatory minimums (Bill
S-10) take away judicial discretion. Until now, judges have been able
to look at mitigating circumstances and make decisions about sentencing
based on the accused person's level of involvement in the crime,
history, family or employment situation, etc. Now someone caught with as
few as six marijuana plants will be charged with trafficking and
receive a minimum jail sentence of 6 months. Changes to the youth
justice act (Bill C-4) will result in more youth being held in pre-trial
custody, more youth bring tried in adult court and sent to adult
prisons, and increased custodial sentences rather than community
sentences (like probation or community service). And Bill C-16, which is
touted as eliminating house arrest for "serious" crimes, will result in
jail time for people convicted for minor and property crimes.
Bill
C-10 will also impose considerable additional hardships on people while
they're in prison. Bill C-39 removes language about rehabilitation and
reintegration from the purpose of federal corrections in the Corrections and Conditional Release Act,
focusing solely on "the protection of society" as the paramount
consideration. There is already very little effective or easily
available rehabilitative programming inside Canadian prisons, especially
for people serving long sentences, so with this language removed
federal prisoners are even less likely to receive essential programs.
This
is particularly troubling in light of the bill's strengthened focus on
prisoners having to complete their correctional plan before their
release. It creates a Catch-22 where a prisoner's future freedom is
dependent on services that are not made accessible to him/her. This bill
also removes the language that the "least restrictive measures" must be
used by guards to control prisoners. This will undoubtedly lead to more
staff-on-prisoner violence and other potential human rights violations.
It also adds new institutional charges, including "disrespecting"
correctional staff, which can lead to punishments such as segregation
and the restriction of family visits. C-39 also makes it significantly
more difficult for prisoners to get parole.
On the back end, with
Bill 23B the term "pardon" is being replaced by the term "record
suspension," the waiting periods will be longer before someone can
apply, and certain convictions will make one altogether ineligible for a
record suspension. Without having their criminal records expunged, it
will be much more difficult for ex-prisoners to find employment, and
make it more likely that they will reoffend and end up back in jail.
Bill
C-39 proposes another amendment that would allow police officers to
arrest someone without a warrant, if the officer "feels" that the person
might be breaking their parole conditions. It is often said that once
people get involved in the criminal system, it is very hard for them to
get out. With this legislation, the revolving door keeps picking up
speed.
Meanwhile, the opposition to these draconian responses to
crime has been growing. Quebec and Ontario have refused to pay the
astronomical costs associated with the bill. The Canadian Bar
Association came out with a list of ten reasons to oppose the bill, and
an association of defence lawyers from the US wrote an open letter to
the Harper government imploring them not to go down the same road of
mass incarceration that has been an utter failure there.
Even
Texas law enforcement officials told the Conservatives they were making a
mistake. Texas is the state that uses the death penalty more than any
other, and has seen fit to execute children and intellectually disabled
people. If law enforcement from George W. Bush Country is telling you
that your crime agenda is too harsh, you know there's a problem.
The
mainstream media, which often colludes with governments to create a
culture of fear in which harsh laws will be accepted by the public, has
for the most part gotten on board in denouncing the bill. And from a
community perspective, many individuals and groups have come together to
organize demos and events to discuss the devastating consequences of
Bill C-10, particularly to already marginalized communities.
"Warehouses for the Poor"
So
given all of the public outcry, and the complete lack of evidence that
this bill will do anything to make our communities safer, why is Harper
insisting on ramming C-10 through parliament as quickly as possible? Is
his party full of rabid ideologues who actually believe that they have a
mandate from the people to pass this legislation? Are they
mean-spirited? Contemptuous of facts? Not very bright?
While all
of these things may play a part in the saga of C-10, I think there's a
simpler answer. People who have stuff want to keep it, whether that
stuff is money, material possessions or political power. Criminal laws
were first instituted to ensure that wealthy people had their property
protected, and that hasn't changed. The dominant culture has no interest
in a shift in the balance of power.
While C-10 may cost billions
in taxpayers' dollars, a lot of rich people are going to get richer
thanks to Harper's prison expansion plan. Many corporations have
contracts with Correctional Services Canada (CSC). If you go to the CSC
website and click on "Proactive Disclosure" and then "Disclosure of
Contracts" you will get a sense of who is benefitting from the increased
prison population.
I have a sign in my office that says "Jails
are warehouses for poor people." In fact, jails are warehouses for poor
people; homeless people; Aboriginal people; people from racialized
communities; people with physical and intellectual disabilities;
survivors of physical, sexual and emotional abuse; psychiatric
survivors; people who use drugs, queer and trans people; people living
with HIV, and as we saw so clearly illustrated during the G20, people
who express political dissent.
People in power are invested in
keeping things the same, and squashing those who have the nerve to
suggest that things could be, and in fact should be, different.
Prison in general, and Bill C-10 in particular, is a highly effective
means of exerting social control. Whether it's Aboriginal people asking
to have what was stolen returned to them, or other groups looking for
the considerable wealth and resources of this country to be more
equitably distributed, or simply those who challenge the status quo,
locking people up and removing them from their communities is an
effective way of silencing those voices.
But all is not lost.
The Senate refused to capitulate to Harper and pass C-10 before
parliament broke for Christmas. This will give them more time to
investigate the bill and hopefully make changes. And if worse comes to
worse and it's passed as is … governments can be defeated, bills can be
repealed, and a more compassionate, just society can be created. We just
have to keep fighting.
Joan Ruzsa has been the coordinator of Rittenhouse, an
abolitionist agency that advocates for alternatives to incarceration,
since 2000. She also works at PASAN (Prisoners with HIV/AIDS Support
Action Network) and is studying to become a psychotherapist. |
