The Conservative government's planned series of reforms to the criminal justice system could cost tens of billions of dollars based on the estimated cost of just one of them — as calculated by the parliamentary budget officer.
Last week, the Tories introduced four crime-related bills in Parliament.
One would kill the so-called faint hope clause that allows some people serving life sentences to apply for parole after 15 years (instead of the usual 25 common for first-degree murder and other life sentence convictions).
Another would revive two highly contentious parts of the Anti-terrorism Act that were subject to sunset clauses in the original legislation and are no longer in force. The changes would allow police to detain suspects without charge in terrorism investigations and could force people to testify at secret terrorism-related hearings.
A third bill would institute minimum jail terms for certain offences, including arson, counterfeiting and extortion.
Opposition parties have asked the government for an estimate of how much the reforms — with the resulting longer jail sentences, detentions without charge and other consequences — will cost.
While a total figure has yet to be tabulated, parliamentary budget officer Kevin Page says just one government initiative, the elimination of two-for-one sentencing credit for time served in pre-trial custody, will cost between $7 billion and $10 billion over the next five years.
Two-for-one credit allows criminals to get two years taken off their sentence for every one that they were detained leading up to their sentencing. It is a common judicial practice meant to provide some compensation for the conditions of pre-trial detention, during which people do not have access to the services regular prisoners do, and the delay in bringing a case to trial.
Page's complex investigation into the budget implications of the elimination of two-for-one sentencing is expected to be made public early next week.
Sources familiar with the document told The Canadian Press that the study concludes the provinces will have to pick up about three-quarters of the costs while Ottawa will cover the rest.
Government likely to contest Page's analysis
The report is likely to provoke a showdown between Page's office and the government. Ottawa has always maintained that much of the increased cost of longer jail terms could be absorbed by shuffling prisoners to prisons that have extra space or by more double-bunking — the practice of putting two prisoners in one cell.
Critics call that practice "chicken-caging" and say it would be a betrayal of Canada's international commitments to maintain certain standards in the correctional system.
In an interview Tuesday, Public Safety Minister Vic Toews acknowledged the government doesn't have a precise idea of how much the legislation will end up costing.
"We're not exactly sure how much it will cost us," Toews said. "There are some low estimates, and some that would see more spent — not more than $90 million."
Toews said that amount has been set aside over this year and next to implement the law at the federal level and expand existing facilities if need be.
The provinces should not see any increase in costs, Toews said, noting that the impetus for the legislation came mainly from provincial attorneys-general.
Cutting credit for time served will be costly
The change in sentencing credit, known as Bill C-25, took effect in February after Prime Minister Stephen Harper filled five vacant Senate seats with loyal Conservatives to make sure the legislation would pass.
An earlier version of the bill, introduced before Harper prorogued Parliament last December at a time when the upper chamber had a slim Liberal majority, died in the Senate.
Under the new law, judges are required to count the time spent in pre-trial as straight time served, in most cases. As a result, many criminals will likely be in prison far longer than before, putting a strain on infrastructure and tight budgets.
The practical effects of the legislation have never been thoroughly examined in public. The government has refused to release its internal analysis of the impact of the reform on prison populations and correctional budgets.
"It's always difficult to estimate what the impact is going to be," Toews said.
"Quite frankly, I'm not so sure that there will be a significant increase in our [prison] population."
According to the parliamentary budget officer's analysis, the $90 million set aside by Ottawa for the reform will not be nearly enough to cover the resulting costs.
Page devoted a third of his staff and six months to building statistical models to estimate the financial impact of the sentencing change and had outside experts assess the results.
The Bill C-25 cost estimate was requested by Liberal MP Mark Holland after The Canadian Press revealed last fall that the costs could be large and that MPs passed the legislation without the benefit of a government cost estimate.
"It's going to show that the costs involved are mind-boggling," Holland said in an interview.
The Harper government's prison-sentencing laws will cost Canadians billions of dollars, including an estimated $2 billion for one piece of legislation alone, Public Safety Minister Vic Toews acknowledged Wednesday.
Toews said the government has a good idea of the overall cost of its aggressive law-and-order agenda, but does not want to make the numbers public.
"I'd rather not share my idea on that," Toews told reporters on Parliament Hill.
"It will come out in due course."
Toews commented Wednesday as a pre-emptive strike against Canada's independent Parliamentary Budget Officer, Kevin Page, who is to release a report next week that is expected to peg the cost of one new law -- ending two-for-one sentencing credits for time already served in custody -- in the billions.
The estimate released by Toews ballooned almost overnight -- the government has previously said it set aside $89 million for the first year of the new legislation, which took effect in February.
"I can tell you one thing," Toews said. "Our government is prepared to pay the cost to keep dangerous offenders in prison."
Ending two-for-one credits is one of several Harper government law-and-order initiatives designed to put more people in prison and keep them there longer.
Toews reiterated Wednesday that the government has no immediate plans to build new prisons, but said that it will renovate existing ones and rely more on double-bunking prisoners.
Craig Jones, executive director of the John Howard Society, said that the Conservatives are going down the same road as the U.S., where tough-sentencing initiatives have failed to reduce crime.
"In the United States, the cost of so-called crime agendas are staggeringly large and disproportionate to the amount of crime reduction they actually purchase," he said.
"It seems like the government has cast its crime agenda on the American model and there is no reason to think they are going to be any more successful at reducing crime."
Jones also questioned how Canadians will ever know if they are getting value for their money, given that crime rates have been declining since the early 1990s. Other Tory promises include mandatory jail terms for drug-related crimes, curtailing the use of conditional sentences, and ending automatic statutory release after serving two-thirds of a sentence.
Liberal public safety critic Mark Holland had asked Page to look at the costs of the government's sentencing bills, and his office intends to release a series of reports, starting with the one on two-for-one credit.
Prisoner-rights advocates have consistently estimated over the Past five years that the Conservative prison agenda would cost billions.
Jones said that he has done his own "crude" analysis of the new law ending two-for-one credits, which put the cost in the $8-to $10-billion range for that one initiative.
OTTAWA — The Harper government's plan to toughen sentences for criminals may have undesired consequences that open the door to more crime when convicts are released without adequate rehabilitation, says a social advocacy group.
Some of the concerns, raised by the John Howard Society, are also echoed by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities which is calling for a more comprehensive plan to address crime and poverty.
"If you're going to have more people in the prison system, you also need to think about how you're going to support them as they reintegrate into the communities afterward and what the costs are going to be associated with that," said Berry Vrbanovic, a vice-president of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. "What kind of programing has happened while they were incarcerated and how will that support them to ensure that the rate of recidivism doesn't grow as well?"
The John Howard Society, which promotes "effective, just and humane responses to the causes and consequences of crime," warns that proposals to toughen sentences may lead to trouble a few years down the road when convicts with mental illnesses, substance abuse problems or other disorders get out of prison.
"The question that I think policy-makers should be addressing themselves to is not so much the question of who goes in, but who are they when they come out?" said Craig Jones, the executive director of the organization. "The government hasn't funded rehabilitation the same way they funded incarceration. That's my concern and that's the issue I've been trying to draw people's attention to."
Jones has estimated that prison costs could rise by as much as $10 billion because of the tougher sentences.
The Harper government has said that it continues to support existing rehabilitative programs, but that it also stands with victims and law-abiding Canadians, putting their safety first.
"As victims have repeatedly told us, releasing criminals onto our streets early has a much higher cost than keeping criminals behind bars," said Christopher McCluskey, a spokesman for the Public Safety Minister Vic Toews, explaining that the government has increased spending and grants for prevention by 46 per cent over the last year.
"Under the previous system, criminals — including convicted terrorists — were sometimes released the day after their sentencing."
Vrbanovic, who is a city councillor in Kitchener, Ont., said the municipalities recognize that it's important to punish criminals but that the best way to fight crime is preventing it from happening in the first place. He said his own city has some federal funding for preventive programs, but that there are still significant needs across the country for new federal and provincial investments in after-school programs, affordable housing, and other services provided by municipalities that address some of the risks.
He said that cities face rising costs to pay for police duties that are being off-loaded to municipal police forces in areas such as border security, Internet crimes and organized crime. But he said the municipalities don't have much room to manoeuvre since they are also facing increasing pressure to repair crumbling infrastructure and deliver social services after a series of federal and provincial cuts through the 1990s.
The cities have maintained that property taxes give them less than 10 per cent of total tax revenues collected in Canada, while the provincial and federal governments have more flexibility to increase revenues from income and sales taxes when the economy is growing.
Some of the concerns, raised by the John Howard Society, are also echoed by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities which is calling for a more comprehensive plan to address crime and poverty.
"If you're going to have more people in the prison system, you also need to think about how you're going to support them as they reintegrate into the communities afterward and what the costs are going to be associated with that," said Berry Vrbanovic, a vice-president of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. "What kind of programing has happened while they were incarcerated and how will that support them to ensure that the rate of recidivism doesn't grow as well?"
The John Howard Society, which promotes "effective, just and humane responses to the causes and consequences of crime," warns that proposals to toughen sentences may lead to trouble a few years down the road when convicts with mental illnesses, substance abuse problems or other disorders get out of prison.
"The question that I think policy-makers should be addressing themselves to is not so much the question of who goes in, but who are they when they come out?" said Craig Jones, the executive director of the organization. "The government hasn't funded rehabilitation the same way they funded incarceration. That's my concern and that's the issue I've been trying to draw people's attention to."
Jones has estimated that prison costs could rise by as much as $10 billion because of the tougher sentences.
The Harper government has said that it continues to support existing rehabilitative programs, but that it also stands with victims and law-abiding Canadians, putting their safety first.
"As victims have repeatedly told us, releasing criminals onto our streets early has a much higher cost than keeping criminals behind bars," said Christopher McCluskey, a spokesman for the Public Safety Minister Vic Toews, explaining that the government has increased spending and grants for prevention by 46 per cent over the last year.
"Under the previous system, criminals — including convicted terrorists — were sometimes released the day after their sentencing."
Vrbanovic, who is a city councillor in Kitchener, Ont., said the municipalities recognize that it's important to punish criminals but that the best way to fight crime is preventing it from happening in the first place. He said his own city has some federal funding for preventive programs, but that there are still significant needs across the country for new federal and provincial investments in after-school programs, affordable housing, and other services provided by municipalities that address some of the risks.
He said that cities face rising costs to pay for police duties that are being off-loaded to municipal police forces in areas such as border security, Internet crimes and organized crime. But he said the municipalities don't have much room to manoeuvre since they are also facing increasing pressure to repair crumbling infrastructure and deliver social services after a series of federal and provincial cuts through the 1990s.
The cities have maintained that property taxes give them less than 10 per cent of total tax revenues collected in Canada, while the provincial and federal governments have more flexibility to increase revenues from income and sales taxes when the economy is growing.
No comments:
Post a Comment