Youth Justice Programs Lose Funding

When the government says that it is continuing to fund youth justice programs, you might think that’s a good thing.

Except in this case, with this government, ‘continuing to fund’ actually means slashing funding by 20% – a little detail that was omitted from Justice Minister Rob Nicholson’s June 27th news release. Titled ‘Government of Canada announces continued support to youth justice services’, it sounds like a good news story.

It’s not.

The federal government is cutting $35.6 million used to supervise and rehabilitate young offenders. The annual fund of $177.3  has suddenly dropped to $141.7. This move has stunned provincial ministers, social workers and especially those working with youth in conflict with the law.

And while the government is touting the savings made from this cut, reducing rehabilitation efforts doesn’t actually make much financial sense. As Beth Alkenbrack, a youth counsellor in Thunder Bay working to keep at-risk youth out of jails, told the Toronto Star, “It costs less than $10,000 a year to service a youth with me, and if they’re in a youth justice custody facility, it’s going to cost a minimum of $150,000 a year.”

When taken in conjunction with the recently enacted Omnibus Crime Bill, things are looking very grim for youth justice in Canada. Bill C-10 has meant more young people are being sentenced to jail for less severe crimes and for longer times.

Article 40 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child obligates states to use alternatives to jails as much as possible, with detention as a last resort, and to give priority to rehabilitation, reintegration, and correction. Already Bill C-10 violates the Convention. This recent announcement adds to the shameful disregard of the rights of youth, of effective responses to crime, and of basic common sense.

Advertisements

Aboriginal Incarceration in Canada a National Shame

Emile TherienEmile Therien retired after 18 years as President of the Canada Safety Council in July 2006. He is currently President of PIP – Progress Intelligently Planned, a small enterprise which promotes its services to the non-profit sector, small companies and governments. He is a widely respected spokesperson on public health and safety issues/concerns.


National Aboriginal Day, featuring activities in aboriginal communities across the country, is celebrated on June 21. But as we honour Aboriginal Canadians, we should always keep in mind a great injustice that continues to be perpetuated against them. Incarceration!

First Nations children are more likely to go to jail than to graduate from high school, according to Shawn Atleo, National Chief of the Assembly of First Nations.

In his 2009 annual report, Correctional Investigator Howard Sapers revealed that the rate for Aboriginal incarceration in 2008 was nine times the national average. Figures for 2007/2008 from Statistics Canada show that Aboriginal adults accounted for 22% of admissions to sentenced custody even though they represent only 3% of the population – and one in three federally sentenced women is Aboriginal.

In view of such a deplorable situation, one must ask why the federal government spends only 2% of its prison budget, which now exceeds $3 billion a year, on Aboriginal programs, while passing new crime legislation, Bill C-10, which will put more First Nations people in prison, where they will spend longer periods of time.

For the record, excluding the provincial system, there are over 14,000 federal offenders in custody and about 8,000 in the community on some form of conditional release. The Correctional Services of Canada (CSC) manages over 50 facilities, employs more than 20,000 people, up from 14,000 in 2005-2006, and has an annual budget of $3-billion, up from $1.6 billion in 2005-2006.

Back in 1999, the Supreme Court of Canada made a ruling in a case involving an Aboriginal defendant, a Mr. Gladue. The ruling called on judges, in sentencing Aboriginal people, to exercise discretion, to be sensitive to the historical plight of Canada’s first nations, and always to consider their heritage. The application of this ruling led to what has become known as Gladue Court for Aboriginal people, and the use of Gladue reports when sentencing offenders.

The overall response by the judiciary to that landmark ruling, as evident by the growing incarceration rate of Aboriginals, has been apathetic and sporadic. Its application varies from one extreme to the other, depending on jurisdiction. Of late, judges, in response to inadequate access to native sentencing, have been reducing prison sentences for serious crimes committed by Aboriginals.

In one case in Windsor, when Ontario Superior Court Justice Renée Pomerance sought a Gladue report, she was told the service was not available in that city. She was told Gladue service was only available in Toronto, Brantford-Hamilton, Waterloo-Wellington, Sarnia, London, and parts of Northern Ontario. She declared that compliance with the law should not depend on the jurisdiction where the case is being heard. The law “applies to offenders across Canada, wherever they may reside and wherever they may be sentenced,” she wrote.

Some jurisdictions across the country evidently considered the edict from the Supreme Court of Canada only to be a suggestion. But in March 2012, the Supreme Court reiterated it was a firm requirement. “Courts must take judicial notice of such matters as the history of colonialism, displacement and residential schools and how that history continues to translate into lower educational attainment, lower incomes higher unemployment, higher rates of substance abuse and suicide and, of course, higher levels of incarceration for Aboriginal Peoples,” Justice Louis LeBel wrote. “Failing to take these circumstances into account would violate the fundamental principle of sentencing.”

One expert, Jonathan Rudin, Program Director of Aboriginal Legal Services of Toronto, has argued the situation will lead to a standoff between the courts and the government. Is the Gladue Court yet another failed initiative, further evidence of systemic disrespect and contempt for the rights of native Canadians?

An independent report commissioned by the Correctional Investigator and released in the fall of 2009 examined the situation of aboriginal offenders under federal sentence and found it remains unacceptable. The Mann Report, authored by Michelle Mann, titled Good Intentions, Disappointing Results: A Progress Report on Federal Aboriginal Corrections, describes how correctional outcomes for Aboriginal offenders continue to lag significantly behind those of non-Aboriginal offenders on almost every indicator. It found that the federal correctional service is not doing all it can for Aboriginal offenders and their communities.

To address the problems identified in the Mann Report, and to ensure the legal mandate of the Correctional Service is met, the Correctional Investigator called for the appointment of a Deputy Commissioner for Aboriginal Corrections. This idea was dismissed outright by then Public Safety Minister Peter Van Loan.

In June 2008, Prime Minister Stephen Harper apologized to Canada’s First Nations for this country’s despicable role in the Indian residential schools, a racist program aimed at assimilation and even today blamed for the high rate of Aboriginal incarceration. His apology at the time seemed genuine.

The Harper government claims it is committed to a policy that makes Aboriginals full members of the national economy. Where are the details of this policy? And – of utmost importance – how does it address the crushing rate of incarceration?

– Emile Therien

Links of interest:

Pizzas, Street Parlours and Prisons

Impact of Bill C-10 on Aboriginal Peoples

The Senate Committee debating Bill C-10, the omnibus crime bill, heard today how this legislation will negatively impact Aboriginal Peoples.

Shawn Atleo

Shawn Atleo, AFN National Cheif (Mike Deal / Winnipeg Free Press).

Assembly of First Nations (AFN) National Chief Shawn A-in-chut Atleo  spoke via video conference from his community on the west coast of the Vancouver Island. He made it clear that the AFN is very concerned about the direction Bill C-10 is headed in and that this legislation will not make Aboriginal communities safer. Unfortunately his testimony was cut short due to technical problems, so AFN senior strategist, Roger Jones provided further details and fielded the Senators’ questions.

Jones told the Committee that the AFN searched high and low for elements within Bill C-10 that would improve the situation for Aboriginal Peoples – and couldn’t find anything.

He said the Omnibus Bill will compound the existing over-representation of Aboriginal people in the criminal justice system, such as through mandatory minimum sentences (mms) for drug offences and the removal of judicial discretionwith regard to such things as the Gladue principles.

References to the Gladue decision were frequent throughout AFN panel discussion. Gladue principles, based on a 1999 Supreme Court interpretation of Section 718.2 of the Criminal Code, provide that reasonable alternatives to imprisonment should be sought and particular attention should be given to the circumstances of Aboriginal offenders.

Senator Mobina Jaffer suggested that the Senate could recommend an exemption clause in Bill C-10 so as to preserve Gladue principles.

Senator Fraser questioned how often these principles are applied. (Not often enough, Jones replied.) Senator Lang challenged Jones as to why MMS for such reprehensible crimes as child sexual exploitation should have exceptions for Aboriginal offenders. Jones replied that nature of the crime should never negate the need to look at the offender’s circumstances.

In contrast to the AFN’s detailed concerns with the Omnibus Bill, University of British Colombia Law Professor, Benjamin Perrin, presented the Senate Committee with his strong support of “all” aspects of the bill, suggesting it balances criminal law by enhancing the accountability of offenders and increasing the rights of victims.

He argued that more people charged with cultivating marijuana should be imprisoned and that 89% of marijuana production comes from organized crime groups and the majority of what is produced is destined for the United States, fueling serious border problems. This argument relies on the assumptions of supply suppression and drug probation which have actually made drugs more available and cheaper, and have undermined the public health system.

Indeed, all criminal justice legislation relies on certain assumptions – such as incarceration as a tool of deterrence and segregation as punishment – but as the AFN repeatedly pointed out today, these assumptions and their outcomes have resulted in a sustained failure to address the systemic roots of crime or how the justice system continues to fail First Nations Peoples.

Omnibus Crime Bill Tabled in House of Commons

Rob Nicholson

Federal Justice MInister Rob Nicholson tabled the Omnibus Crime Bill on Sept 20, 2011 (Adrian Wyld/CP).

As expected, today the Conservative Justice Minster Rob Nicholson tabled the omnibus crime bill – a massive ‘tough on crime’ legislation package titled ‘Safe Streets and Communities Act’.

Unfortunately this 110-page bill will do little to create real safety for Canadians. Instead it will lead to massive spending, tax increases, over-crowded prisons, decreased judicial discretion and fewer rehabilitative services – none of which will make our communities safer.

The Conservatives were brought down after being found in contempt of Parliament for refusing to disclose the costs of their tough on crime bills. They somehow managed to come back to government with a majority – and are still continuing to refuse to disclose the costs.

Nicholson says that they are ready to pay the price to keep the streets safe. Well, it’s the taxpayers who are going to be paying for it – not just through increased taxes but through seeing money taken out of services like health care and education and sucked into massive prison complexes.

At a press conference in the Centre Block today, four groups – the John Howard Society, the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies (CAEFS), theCanadian Civil Liberties Association and the Native Women’s Association, strongly spoke out against the bill.

Catherine Latimer, Executive Director of the John Howard Society, pointed to concerns about already over-crowded prisons potentially violating human rights as they become more packed. Kim Pate, CAEFS, proposed that an amendment be added to the bill stating that it cannot be enacted until all the provinces and territories have signed off on the costs that they will have to face in housing the increased number of prisoners this bill will create.

Opposition MPs are also demanding that costs be tabled and that the bill not be rammed through without due consideration and deliberation.

“We’re being encouraged to believe we need this for public safety,” said Kim Pate. “It’s a farce. If in fact it was true, then the U.S. would be the safest place in the world, the States would not be going bankrupt and they would not be retreating from this agenda.”

Homelessness

EMCP, Carleton University

research play

exploring, questioning, challenging: research as play

Artisan Spotlight - a Mineau Media Special Series

A photoblog about artisans in the Outaouais River Region, by Philippe Mineau, owner, Mineau Media

loveOttawa

the big city with small town heart!

Centre of Criminology Library Blog

Critical perspectives on social justice