CANADIAN CRIMINAL JUSTICE ASSOCIATION
COUNCIL OF ELIZABETH FRY SOCIETIES OF ONTARIO
CONTENTS
Tuesday 14 May 1996
Electronic monitoring
Canadian Criminal Justice Association
Ken Sandhu, chair
Council of Elizabeth Fry Societies of Ontario
Elizabeth Forestell, executive director
STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Chair / Président: Martiniuk, Gerry (Cambridge PC)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Johnson, Ron (Brantford PC)
*Boyd, Marion (London Centre / -Centre ND)
Chiarelli, Robert (Ottawa West / -Ouest L)
Conway, Sean G. (Renfrew North / -Nord L)
Doyle, Ed (Wentworth East / -Est PC)
*Guzzo, Garry J. (Ottawa-Rideau PC)
*Hampton, Howard (Rainy River ND)
Hudak, Tim (Niagara South / -Sud PC)
Johnson, Ron (Brantford PC)
*Klees, Frank (York-Mackenzie PC)
Leadston, Gary L. (Kitchener-Wilmot PC)
*Martiniuk, Gerry (Cambridge PC)
*Parker, John L. (York East / -Est PC)
*Ramsay, David (Timiskaming L)
*Tilson, David (Dufferin-Peel PC)
*In attendance / présents
Substitutions present / Membres remplaçants présents:
Carr, Gary (Oakville South / -Sud PC) for Mr Hudak
Clerk / Greffière: Donna Bryce
Staff / Personnel: Susan Swift, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1540 in room 228.
ELECTRONIC MONITORING
Consideration of the designated matter pursuant to standing order 125, relating to the impact of halfway house closures and the introduction of electronic monitoring.
The Chair (Mr Gerry Martiniuk): I call the meeting of the justice committee to order. I see a quorum. Mr Ramsay came in while I wasn't watching and we seem to be ready to proceed.
Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): Are you putting that on the record, I sneaked in to the committee?
CANADIAN CRIMINAL JUSTICE ASSOCIATION
The Chair: Mr Sandhu is our first presenter on behalf of the Canadian Criminal Justice Association. You should have received a brief -- you should each have it -- with a rather attractive chart attached. If you'd proceed, sir.
Mr Ken Sandhu: I'm going to sort of go through the paper that you have before you very quickly in parts because obviously if I read the whole thing, we would not be able to get through all of it.
I'm going to just simply make mention of the fact that the Canadian Criminal Justice Association or CCJA has a very unique feature that in every province there is an affiliate. The affiliate in Ontario is the Ontario Association of Corrections and Criminology.
This particular affiliate was one of the associations that formed a coalition for purposes of providing you with a submission. I believe they appeared before you on Tuesday, April 30. CCJA supports their position, specifically their offer to work with the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services to look at practical solutions to utilizing community correctional residences or community correctional beds in the future.
Having said this, I'm going to make a disclaimer. CCJA has a very practical policy in place to ensure that its final position on any issue will be reviewed and approved by its executive members. The executive members are literally spread out between Vancouver and Halifax.
Given the fact that I was added to the agenda later than some other groups, I have not been able to consult with my colleagues. Therefore, what you are going to hear from me today are the observations of a person who grew up in Ontario's correctional system with 25 years of service, and not the official position of the CCJA.
I'm going to skip through the next page and a half by simply saying that I've tried to capture for you the historical perspective as I saw it. CRCs were started in the mid-1970s primarily to allow inmates to pursue educational and employment opportunities. I know you have been given a great deal of information about the background, and it seems to me that the program worked fine, there were a number of increases in terms of the new houses. It wasn't always easy because you all know how difficult it is to start a community correctional facility in the community when nobody wants it. It's a lot like the dump issue. In any case, we were successful in having several of these in place.
Another very important development that took place, in my view, was in the mid-1980s when some of the workers unionized and there was a great deal of pressure to bring the salaries in line with some sort of required standard.
In addition to that, there were offender programs, such as life skills and what have you, treatment programs, that were added to these residences. This caused the per diem rates to go from something like $22.45 in 1980 to $80 or thereabouts in 1990. Mind you, during this period the correctional workers' salaries increased as well.
So the notion of subsidized housing became a little more obvious when you realized that the costs had gone up. People who were supposed to be out for purposes of employment or education and, as a result of recession and downturn in economy, were in fact not employed all that well -- and above all, that the correctional system had empty beds and could absorb the 300 inmates overnight and did so.
This brings me to a larger issue of conditional release. It seems that there was a need to look at all of this in the context of conditional release in the province. Conditional release is simply release from imprisonment under some conditions and there are presently two conditional release mechanisms in Ontario: the temporary absence program and parole.
The TA program was originally intended to allow correctional authorities to grant offenders temporary absence from prison, as I explained, for purposes of employment, education, hospitalization etc. There were some very fine programs that were carried out under this. Inmates were used to provide services during emergencies caused by floods and tornadoes. The inmates on TA -- I don't know if you know this or not -- were involved in setting up and later dismantling the physical structures that were necessary for the Pope's visit in 1984.
The problem in part that I observed was that TA, which was originally meant to be just a temporary absence, became more than temporary absence when it was used in the context of CRCs. It was more like a day parole or a pre-release program. Now generally, shorter-sentenced and presumably lower-risk cases went to CRCs, whereas the longer-sentenced, high-risk cases came to the Ontario Board of Parole for consideration of full parole and the parole board generally did not have access to CRC beds because these were considered to be institutional beds.
There was also duplication in terms of the TA process and the parole process. These things started to cause problems and certainly there was a desire to look at the overall conditional release strategy, but it seems as though we never really got down to it.
The province of Quebec did do that and, after a considerable amount of soul-searching, settled on a system which currently consists of no inmate serving less than six months is eligible for parole, and no inmate serving a sentence of more than six months can be considered for TA except for the initial portion of the six months. In fact, this allows them to place some people in their CRCs to judge their ability to operate in a community residence prior to consideration by parole. The Quebec board of parole hears all appeals including those in the TA cases. The movement from CRC to parole represents a continuum of correctional supervision in Quebec as opposed to a competition, which sometimes it seemed to do in Ontario.
I'll just give you a very quick thumbnail sketch of the conditional release numbers in Ontario. The Ontario prison system generally holds about 7,500 to 8,000 incarcerates. The average number of persons on remand are 3,000 on any given day and 4,500 sentenced inmates. This would include about 300 to 350 CRC residents on the TA program when it was operational.
The Ontario Board of Parole, on average, would have between 1,400 and 1,500 parolees in the community on any given day. During the peak in 1993, there were more than 1,900 parolees, although the present number has dropped to about 1,000. Over 25% of provincially sentenced offenders, mostly serving a sentence of more than six months, are on full parole. On the day the CRCs were closed, there was a total of 10 parolees in CRCs and eight of them were at the Egerton House in London, which was a specialized facility for parolees. This gives you an idea of the relative population size.
1550
I'm quickly going to go over some of the recommendations or suggestions, and I make this sort of quantum leap from what I have indicated up to this point to my recommendations on the fact that you have been given a lot of information, from what I can tell, and so if it might seem a little spastic, please forgive me, I'm simply relying on the fact that you have the information.
My first recommendation would be that alternative secure settings be explored for persons on remand, such as through electronic monitoring or in a community residence. There are around 3,000 persons on remand on any given day and they're all in costly supermaximum jails or detention centres.
I understand that there may be a need to study this group a little bit better. Because of the fact that they have been on remand, they are not very well understood, let's say, or we don't know enough about them.
My second recommendation is that corrections discuss with its community corrections partners the possibility of using some beds for those inmates who do not qualify for electronic monitoring, but can be supervised in a community residence in high demand areas. I understand that some attempts are being made already to call together the stakeholders in the very near future.
Thirdly, I suggest that a single conditional release authority could serve the province well in determining who is appropriate for release and to what program. There are certain basic requirements that should be met. A conditional release program must work very closely with the correctional system because the correctional system is the essential lifeline for information, assessment and supervision. Such an authority must maintain very close links with other components of the system, such as police, crowns and judiciary. The judiciary is singularly most important to the success and failure of a conditional release program, closely followed by the crowns and police. While judicial independence is paramount and must never be compromised, it wouldn't hurt to ask them what they think of electronic monitoring and community resource centres.
This point leads me to my final recommendation, that ultimately I am in favour of giving the judges as many sentencing options as possible. It is in regard to this that I refer to the chart, Mr Chairman, that you mentioned at the start of the meeting, which is a chart showing "Escalating Punishments to Fit the Crime" and it's been taken out of a booklet entitled Seeking Justice, Crime and Punishment in America. It lists the sanctions that are workable in Ontario, including boot camp or a strict discipline facility.
I think the statement at the bottom of the chart is a very powerful statement that's worth repeating here, "An expanded range of sentencing options gives judges greater latitude to exercise discretion in selecting punishments that more closely fit the circumstances of the crime and the offender. The approach treats prisons as the backstop, rather than the backbone, of the corrections system."
My final comment is that I believe adopting a model of expanded range of sentencing options and a consolidated system of conditional release will allow you to get tough with the tough guy.
Thank you for the opportunity to share my views.
Mr Ramsay: Nice to see you again and welcome to the committee. First of all, just on the chart, that might be an appropriate title for our report to the Legislature. I like that: "Escalating Punishments to Fit the Crime." I think that's what a lot of the people have been saying here: providing a menu of options. Certainly the opposition parties were very concerned that one particular option has been eliminated, where I think in governing today, governments, and in this case the criminal justice system, need the flexibility, in this case to fit the appropriate offender to the appropriate sanction. I would not want to see the elimination of any of the options and they all should be considered, for sure.
I was going to get into boot camps, but that's another thing.
On your remarks, I noted you said in your first recommendation that "alternative secure settings be explored for persons on remand such as through electronic monitoring or in a community residence." I have two questions in regard to using a community residence for that. You stated that the per diem cost had risen to about $80 in 1990 for a CRC. I forget, but how does that compare with our per diem rate in jails today? That's got to be fairly comparable.
Mr Sandhu: I believe it's about $120.
Mr Ramsay: So it might be a cheaper option. That's maybe something to explore for cost.
You hinted a little bit about getting to know the offender on remand, and that would be my concern. Would there be enough time to do a risk assessment on somebody remanded, to be able to do that thoroughly enough to put them back out in the community? That would be a concern I would have.
Mr Sandhu: Those are all very valid concerns, but there is a proportion of the remanded population out there that we do know. There is a segment of this society that keeps coming back. We know them. They've been through the system before.
I generally take a cautious approach to all this and that's why in my report to you I suggest that we should study that issue and study that population before we make decisions about how many and who all can we put out there. It just seems to me that we can put some out, and I think as far as cost is concerned -- you see, for remanded population you would not require some of the programs that you require for the sentenced. These are very short-stay people and basically all you're doing is looking at an alternative between a very maximum secure facility and bail supervision or to simply be on their own recognizance. It seems to me we should be able to find something which is intermediate and at a lesser cost than what we were paying even for CRCs.
Mr Ramsay: Mr Chair, do I have a little more time?
The Chair: Yes, you have more time.
Mr Ramsay: I'll take it in the next go-round then.
Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): Just following on from what you've said, if someone is remanded to prison these days rather than released, on conditions or without conditions, on their own recognizance, usually there's a reason they're incarcerated and that reason is public safety concerns. Is that not true?
Mr Sandhu: Like I said, I'm not absolutely certain everybody falls into that category. My difficulty is that by and large this population that is in our maximum security facilities has not been studied. I don't know the characteristics very well. All I know is that I often look at decisions being made at the bail hearing level where they're not always very clear in the sense of, what if one could meet that bail requirement? Then, fine, he or she gets to go home, and if they cannot meet that bail requirement, they get to go to this very maximum security facility.
1600
All I'm suggesting is that we have close to 2,500 or so on any given day in our remand centres, in our detention centres. In my notes, I also point out that some time ago the federal sentencing commission, or rather the law reform commission, one or the other, looked at this, and there was some pressure on Canada as a result of what Canada had said at the United Nations level about human rights and the violation of human rights in some other countries, that Canada needed to look at its own imprisonment policies. As a result of that, I remember attending a meeting with this commission where the question was asked, can you look at separate and apart facilities for remanded people? Of course, having just gone through the Young Offenders Act, those of us in corrections were petrified that here we would be looking at once again establishing a whole other system.
At that point the feeling was that a very large number of these people actually are serving sentences on some offences and are remanded only on some others, so really technically they cannot be let out and they cannot be held separate and apart, and a number of other scenarios sort of appeared. But my impression was that we didn't have a complete picture of them.
Mrs Boyd: If people are being remanded because they can't make bail, that's a very different situation than people being remanded because of public safety. Surely there's some way to get some statistics on that. Surely there are some means to do that. It doesn't sound very complex to me.
But it does seem to me that what we are looking at, both in terms of the bail situation and when C-43 comes in in terms of release through the police authorities, is that the vision is people will only be kept if it is decided that they are a risk to public safety, in which case you say they're usually there too short a time to do a risk assessment on them, and yet very often that is exactly the point at which you need to be doing that risk assessment, since you have the tool.
One of the things we've been talking about here has been, at what point is that risk assessment tool to be brought to bear? Should it be brought to bear sometimes even with a delayed bail hearing, sometimes with a remand situation, sometimes as a pre-sentence report and through in that way, and how is that best used as a resource in terms of protecting public safety? If the general population thought people were being remanded and housed in jail because they didn't have the financial resources to make bail, I think people would be rather annoyed at the cost to us, the taxpayer, if there is some other means. I think you're right about that. But if in fact it's a public safety issue, then I think people would want to be sure the risk assessment tool had been used before someone was released on electronic monitoring.
Mr Sandhu: Absolutely. If you can implement risk assessment at the bail level, I think that's fine. Please understand, I'm looking at it from the tail end; I'm looking more from a correctional point of view than from the front end; obviously you have an advantage in that regard. But I do know of some of the changes that are being suggested and I think all of those can result in making sure that people are sort of sifted through the system much better. It's just that I also have the impression, and I could be wrong about it, that sometimes implementing changes at the front end is not that easy. Let me just say that, yes, I would support a risk assessment at the bail hearing level, before disposition. The sooner we know what kind of person we're dealing with, what the ramifications are for public safety, the better off we would be.
Mrs Boyd: You suggest the judges should be consulted about this range of sentencing things, and I think they do contribute to the sentencing commission at the federal level. I don't see any reason why there would be a concern about independence in terms of looking at this and giving their opinion. It seems to me that most provincial judges I've talked to have exactly the opposite concern, that no one ever consults them about this sort of thing.
Mr Sandhu: Yes. The point I was trying to make there was just that, that I think there is a need to consult the judges. I'm not sure if any judges have given you any information on this issue on conditional release, or rather, on the issue of community correctional facilities or electronic monitoring, but I think it would be very helpful.
I am simply getting at the fact that as I see the system, I see the judges as very crucial to the operation of the system. My fears are always, to use a graphic analogy, in the health care system, it would be like if your family physician diagnoses you as requiring surgery on your gall bladder and the operating surgeon takes a kidney out or something. That's the way the system would appear if the judge's reasons for sentencing and orders were not properly taken into consideration, and often that's what happens. The system doesn't know what was intended in the particular instance.
I think we're probably saying the same thing, and I'm saying that even for issues such as CRCs and electronic monitoring, it would be good to have the judiciary's view.
Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): Mr Sandhu, the notes you have provided to the committee, along with your oral comments, have been very helpful, particularly on page 2 of your notes where you have outlined a bit of the history since you joined the Ministry of Correctional Services, I think your notes say in 1971.
Mr Sandhu: Yes, sir.
Mr Tilson: Are you telling us that there has been an evolution over a period of roughly 25 years from minimum security institutions to halfway houses to now electronic monitoring and perhaps community residential agreements? Is that what you're telling us, for a number of reasons?
Mr Sandhu: It's not quite that simple. I would say that the change as it occurred is that because of financial constraints, a number of programs that are seen to be soft in a way actually have been left off.
The ministry in 1971 was very much involved in running what were called adult training centres, for example, and these training centres were, I would say, close to about 400- to 500-bed capacity. There was a training centre in Simcoe; there was one in Brampton. These were minimum security facilities, no fences, much like a college or school atmosphere. In fact, the facility in Brampton was turned over to the OPP and is the OPP training academy. Corrections in Ontario got out of that kind of business because, as a result of constraints, it seemed that it was continually defining its role more in keeping people in secure places, or securer places let's say. However, CRCs, it seems, took over from those minimum --
Mr Tilson: If I could stop you there, is it because of security or is it because of economic reasons, that change from minimum security institutions to CRCs?
Mr Sandhu: I think originally it changed for financial reasons, because, you see, you could buy a bed in the community a lot cheaper than you would run it yourselves. But certainly there were other considerations. The CRCs were much more widespread and they were in the community. You could place somebody there who actually had a job either around the corner or could get on the bus, whereas correctional institutions couldn't do that. They are fewer in number and they are farther away from your core areas of employment. So there were many reasons. It wasn't just financial reasons. That's how I would explain the change to have occurred.
1610
It seems to me that electronic monitoring is one of several sanctions, as you see in this chart, or several --
Mr Tilson: Can I stop you once again? I'm sorry, I just found the history of it interesting. Your notes seem to indicate that when CRCs or halfway houses were first introduced, there were few programs. You list substance abuse counselling, anger management and life skills counselling. Are you telling us that came later?
Mr Sandhu: That came later in the CRCs, yes.
Mr Tilson: So the CRCs were strictly used as another form of incarceration, I suppose. Is that really what you're saying?
Mr Sandhu: Yes. I think there were either low-cost or no-cost programs they could always implement. It wouldn't be much for the CRCs to have AA meetings arranged. So they were very innovative in that regard. In fact, they got into community work quite well. In some places they were opposed by the neighbouring community and then they worked hard to find acceptance from that community. So they did all that.
I recall visiting one where there were twin homes, and the CRC was a sparkling facility, whereas the privately owned residence was not. But let's face it, there were 15 to 16 young people who were living there and who had time. They could cut the grass. So what these folks would do is they would go over and do the work for the other people as well. This way there was some acceptance.
But again, I can see as it developed, as the assistant deputy said, it started to look like assisted housing, or the term that's used is subsidized housing. These people were not as well employed; nobody was. The recession and loss of jobs had taken their toll. There were more of them on job-search programs than were actually employed. So a lot of those factors started to play a role in terms of what the CRCs were starting to look like. In any event, that's the way I saw it. Those are my observations of it.
The Chair: Excuse me, Mr Tilson, that is the amount of time we have. I'm sorry, Mr Guzzo, there's no more time for questions. Mr Ramsay has two minutes left of his.
Mr Ramsay: I just want to clarify the second recommendation you gave us. You said, "...that corrections discuss with its community corrections partners the possibility of using some beds for those inmates who do not qualify for electronic monitoring but can be supervised in a community residence in high-demand areas." You say then, "I understand that a meeting has been called by the assistant deputy minister with community corrections stakeholders to discuss future strategies." Are they discussing specifically that sort of idea? Do you know?
Mr Sandhu: No, sir, I don't know that. The notification I got states that they wish to look at future strategies for community corrections. My understanding is that a number of people attending are the people who were involved in CRCs. My assumption is that there may be some discussion there. Besides, I thought I also read that the ministry was reviewing its CRA beds, the ones they purchase. My sense is that there may be room there, and I think some of the operators could probably even look at establishing CRA-type facilities. In just talking to them, they seem to think that it may be possible; it's just that there is probably going to be a need for initial capital and things like that.
From the corrections point of view, a CRA bed is more practical. My feeling is that if people could sit down and discuss after they reviewed the situation in terms of how many beds could they use, when and at what point could they use, then something could be done. But by no means do I have any inside information or knowledge of where each party is going on this.
Mr Ramsay: A quick little question. Could you refresh my memory about a CRA bed?
Mr Sandhu: The ministry kept the community residential agreement: that's a bed that they purchase on a per diem basis.
Mr Ramsay: You might have two in a certain home. The home may deal with alcoholism or something but they've got a couple of beds for that purpose.
Mr Sandhu: Exactly.
The Chair: I was going to suggest, Mr Guzzo rarely gets a chance to ask a question. He is a member of the bench. You have the opportunity to ask a question, Mr Guzzo.
Mr Garry J. Guzzo (Ottawa-Rideau): I'm flattered. I thank you.
Mr Ramsay: It better be a good one.
Mr Guzzo: Was a member of the bench, left the bench to get back in politics so people would consult me and let me ask questions and unfortunately I've been assigned to this committee and been cut off by the Chair at every turn.
Just with regard to the issue of bail requirement, the problem that you've expressed here is a very real problem. I've heard the concern; now I want to hear, from your perspective, the solution. The truth of the matter is, as I think it's accurately stated, the most oft-time reason for refusing bail is not the danger to the community but the potential of the person not to reattend.
Mr Sandhu: I don't think, if there is that fear, that that person should be allowed to leave. He should be incarcerated in that regard. I'm not suggesting that those who might be seen as high risk be allowed to go to something less secure. I'm simply suggesting that I think we need to study that whole population. You would agree with me that that's a significantly large number, about 2,500 to 3,000, on any given day.
Mr Guzzo: But if I'm correct about that, and the larger percentage is for the first reason, the unlikeliness of reattending for trial, then electronic monitoring to me seems to be a very viable alternative with that type of person.
Mr Sandhu: Sure. I imagine that with a certain type of offender, you could do that.
Mr Guzzo: It doesn't matter what type of offender it is, because we don't know whether they're innocent or guilty, and we're just hesitant because, number one, they have no fixed address, connections with the community etc, where the trial will be held and whether or not they're going to be around at the time. But the electronic monitoring is a far less intrusive method of ensuring their reattendance than holding them incarcerated until such time as the clogging of the court system allows for a trial.
Mr Sandhu: Let me say that, yes, in general principle I think what you're saying is fine, except that as long as you do understand that electronic monitoring in the scheme of sanctions and level of security that it would provide you with is that at a certain level in this chart, for example, and so I would have no difficulty. This is in fact what in part I am saying, that if once we study the group who are remanded, we could look at possibilities of using any number of these sanctions and any number of these measures to manage them better and to ensure that they do appear or reappear for their hearing.
Mr Guzzo: All right, but --
The Chair: Okay. Thanks, Mr Guzzo. We must move on. We just must.
Mr Sandhu, I'd like to thank you for your attendance. You've given us a new perspective and I think from the questions everyone found it most informative.
1620
COUNCIL OF ELIZABETH FRY SOCIETIES OF ONTARIO
The Chair: Elizabeth Forestell, Council of Elizabeth Fry Societies of Ontario. Welcome. We have one half-hour including questions, and I'd ask you to proceed.
Ms Elizabeth Forestell: Thank you for inviting us to appear before the committee. My name's Elizabeth Forestell. I'm executive director of the Council of Elizabeth Fry Societies of Ontario. The council represents eight Elizabeth Fry societies in Ontario and one emerging society. These agencies have worked with and for women in conflict with the law for about 50 years, providing services at both the provincial and federal levels and in institutions and in the community.
Services include after-care programs, residential programs, addictions recovery, sexual abuse counselling, anger management, parenting, employment training and counselling, court support, bail supervision and parole supervision. At both provincial and federal levels, we also offer expertise and consultative services to government in areas of policy and program development.
We've been recognized nationally as a voice of authority on issues pertaining to the treatment of women by the criminal justice system and the causes of women's crime. An example in Ontario is the recent leading role played by the council in the work of the Women's Issues Task Force, a study of provincially incarcerated women. Incidentally, one of the recommendations of that body -- a recommendation I understand was accepted -- was that the government, "in partnership with community agencies and organizations, develop additional community residences and resource centres providing supervision and programming appropriate to the needs of women in conflict with the law."
In Ontario and in fact across the country, Elizabeth Fry societies are the only organizations specifically mandated to provide services and representation to women in the criminal justice system.
Just before I make my comments, I want to say that I'm aware that you've been given many, many details and much information and data over the past month and I'm not going to repeat that. I feel a bit like I'm flogging a dead horse because I don't think what I'm going to say to you today is very different from what the majority of your witnesses have said. However, I'll go on.
Across Canada, Elizabeth Fry societies have had serious concerns about the use of electronic monitoring. We've been talking about it since the 1980s. Some of the concerns that have consistently arisen have included the risk of net widening, the lack of supportive programs connected with electronic monitoring, the inability of many women to qualify for the program and conversion of women's homes into prisons. I'll come back to each of these concerns. In terms of the implementation of electronic monitoring programs in Ontario, we add to this list the absolute false notion that electronic monitoring can or will replace community residences, the lack of consultation with organizations such as Elizabeth Fry and other community-based experts before closing these residences, and that the use of electronic monitoring as an alternative to other kinds of early release has not been seen as advantageous, according to current research, in any way but cost-wise, and even that cost saving is in serious doubt.
First, I want to clear up a misconception the committee may have regarding the level of consultation between the Ministry of the Solicitor General and the Elizabeth Fry Society. When CRA beds were closed last year, not only were we not consulted, we received no notice of the impending closure. Like other residence operators and advocates, we were made aware of it only when the vans arrived to take residents back to jail, away from their jobs, program participation, community ties and paths to success on which many were working. This hardly seems conducive to strengthening partnerships with the community and improving links among ourselves as partners of the justice system.
Second, the notion that the residences were closed because of low usage is misleading. Underutilization of community beds is not due to lack of need, but to lack of speed in processing applications for community release.
Incidentally, this is a problem we see at the federal level and, in fact, there is a committee called the impediments to release committee that looks exactly at this.
At the provincial level it's exacerbated by the short length of sentences. Often, by the time someone gets through the process, their sentence is over or there's not enough time left to bother serving in a community residence.
The problem of underutilization could easily be resolved by an efficient fast-tracking system, thereby saving dollars currently spent while inmates sit in jail cells waiting for the slow, grinding wheels of bureaucracy. The closure of CRA beds in Ontario was, I believe, the result of an ill-conceived, short-term plan, a decision that in the next few years will be seen as disastrous. By that time, unfortunately, the infrastructures that took so many years to develop will be completely dismantled, and we'll set upon the very expensive task of starting all over.
Aside from expense, community residential centres, as their name implies, offered inmates an opportunity to return to the community in a supported way. They were operated by members of the community, were set in the community and allowed residents access to other community resources. In addition, they gave community members an opportunity to participate in the correctional system in a positive way -- not just by sitting on a parole board and deciding how much longer someone should stay in jail, not just by giving witness impact statements to make sure someone stayed in jail longer, but in a way that brought some balance back to their community. It gave community members an opportunity to take responsibility for correcting the imbalance created in our communities when a crime is committed. This community responsibility is vital to the successful reintegration of those convicted of criminal offences, and successful reintegration is the best safeguard against recidivism.
Electronic monitoring, on the other hand, has no such benefits. It does not allow the community to take responsibility. It does not even require much in the way of human contact. In essence, it does nothing but tell us where the wearer is. It does not contribute to community safety in either the short or long term; it merely creates a false sense of security. Electronic monitoring doesn't tell us how a client is doing in the community, whether she is under undue stress, about to get into trouble, likely to fall out of a substance abuse program, depressed or suicidal, generally in need of help or intervention. In fact, it doesn't tell us anything about how she's doing in the community. It doesn't allow us to help her through potential trouble periods; it only lets us know when she's already in trouble again.
It's important to remember that electronic monitoring wasn't developed by community members concerned with improving the delivery of correctional services; it was developed by the private sector in order to make money, and the private sector has been marketing it to us for many years. As much as seven or eight years ago I was at conferences where there were huge exhibition rooms filled with every kind of electronic monitoring device you could imagine. These were marketed very heavily. All the great lines we hear about how wonderful electronic monitoring is come directly from the marketing managers of those companies that make electronic monitoring devices and manufacture the computer programs to control them.
Any research we've seen on the use of electronic monitoring, on pilot programs, is inconclusive at best. In terms of recidivism rates, there is almost no variance that can be related to the use of the device. Jim Bonta's summary of 1994 points out that any appearance of low recidivism reflects not the effectiveness of the device but the fact that only very low-risk candidates are admitted to the program. He refers to it as the "cream puff factor." If it doesn't address the problem of recidivism, is there not a long-term cost that we should be looking at?
This morning I spoke to staff at the Ministry of the Solicitor General in North Bay. They tell me there are between two and four women in the community on electronic monitoring today. That's not a very specific number, and I'm not sure why their computers couldn't generate something a little more specific than that. I wonder if this can really be saving us money. Over the past few months, I've spoken to other correctional officials around the province. Generally, they tell me no women in their institution will qualify for electronic monitoring, either because they're considered higher than acceptable risk or because they're not able to accommodate the needs of the program, for instance, adequate residence or telephone.
One of the Elizabeth Fry workers in Peterborough tells me that a few weeks ago there were two women serving sentences for fraud. They were unable to qualify for electronic monitoring because they were unemployed and could not afford phones. This is a problem common to women in the criminal justice system. Their crimes are generally related to property, they are poor, they often have high needs in terms of substance abuse or survival issues, and those needs are actually translated into risk factors. If they've been incarcerated for any period of time, their resources are generally depleted. Release to a residential facility gives them time to perhaps find work, deal with some of their issues and get enough money together to pay rent. Electronic monitoring doesn't provide any of these opportunities, even if they do manage to qualify and get into the program.
1630
Another concern we have is the fear of widening the net. I'm sure I'm not the first person to say this to you. Since we hear that women are not being released from institutions to the electronic monitoring program, we can only assume that greater usage will occur at the front end, at sentencing. Therefore, we face the possibility that there will be an increase in sentencing. Women who normally would be sentenced to community service, probation or suspended sentences will instead be sentenced to electronic monitoring. It is our sense, and I must tell you that many experienced correctional and parole officials agree with me on this, that if electronic monitoring is all that is needed, it is probably not needed at all. The widening of the net only serves to increasingly criminalize our population.
In terms of community safety, electronic monitoring gives us a false sense of security. Because it is essentially surveillance technology, it is incapable of alerting us when the wearer is at risk to offend. Remember, it tells us only where the wearer is or is not. One example that's been used to support the use of electronic monitoring is where the wearer may be considered dangerous and the device can be used to alert a potential victim of the wearer's proximity. How helpful is it to a victim to know the person who might hurt her is 200 metres away? Will the police be able to get to her home before she comes to harm? By the time she makes a call or gathers her children together to leave the area, it's probably too late. Electronic monitoring doesn't contribute to community safety. Furthermore, because of the stringent selection criteria, it wouldn't even be an option for someone who's considered to pose any risk to the community, so it's something of a moot point.
Electronic monitoring has the potential to make the home a prison for everyone in it. The family of the wearer, while perhaps providing support, is under a certain level of surveillance. Though they may not be "locked in" themselves, members are forced to live with someone who is, and to live with all the frustrations inherent to that condition. In some cases this may pose actual danger. What strikes me is the number of women we work with who have been victims of abuse and may still be living in that situation. If they're sentenced to electronic monitoring and to house arrest, they would be unable to leave when tensions arise. Surely this isn't a healthy living environment for women or children, whether it's the father or mother who is under electronic surveillance.
Electronic monitoring programs are dependent on technology, and technology can fail. I've seen an almost funny example of that. Just before the OPSEU strike this year, the computer system responsible for monitoring the program failed. Many of those on the program were reincarcerated, not because they had violated their conditions, not because they reoffended, not because of anything that was their responsibility, but because the technology broke and it didn't get fixed until after the strike ended over a month later. I haven't been able to obtain province-wide numbers, but one deputy superintendent told me it meant the return of about 20 people to his jail, and that's a small jail in the north. It doesn't make any sense to me.
In conclusion, on behalf of the Elizabeth Fry societies in Ontario, I beg you to look carefully at the implementation of electronic monitoring and to reconsider the closure of community residences in this province while some of the infrastructures may still be salvageable. Halfway houses for women provide the kind of support, specialized programs and supervision that enables them to rebuild their lives. Other alternatives to incarceration may help them maintain their lives, keep their families together and work towards the future. Incarceration steals away their lives, their place in the community and often their children. Electronic monitoring transforms them into a number in a computer and transforms their homes into prisons.
Just a number of points: First of all, electronic monitoring is not cost-effective. It seems that even the government agrees with this, since I heard the Solicitor General on the radio last week saying they are going to be spending hundreds of millions of dollars over the next few years on jails and courthouses in this province. It doesn't reduce recidivism; it doesn't provide support; it doesn't replace residential services; it doesn't replace incarceration, but may be instrumental in widening the net, perhaps being imposed as a sentencing option in cases that would otherwise not merit incarceratory sentences; and finally, it doesn't contribute to community safety.
Mrs Boyd: Thank you very much for coming. It's been very helpful for us to hear from you the particular situation of women and the danger this may pose for them. I worked a lot with the William Proudfoot House and know that what you say about the need for support of women, almost 100% of whom have suffered abuse in one way or another, is quite true. It's a very difficult thing to imagine that electronic monitoring for that population would be an alternative. I share your concern.
When you look at this situation of the closure of the CRCs, do you think that has impacted more heavily on women as opposed to men in the province, and if so, why?
Ms Forestell: I hesitate to say that it has.
Mrs Boyd: I don't mean in terms of numbers. We know in that numbers between men and women who are convicted are so different. I mean proportionately.
Ms Forestell: Proportionately, women still have more of a chance of getting into a community residence than do men, so no, not in that sense. However, in terms of women being able to come out into the community to something supportive, one difference between men and women in the criminal justice system is that women's lives truly disappear when they go to jail. They very seldom have supportive partners who will take care of their kids, keep paying the rent, pay the phone bill and do all those things. Women very often come out of jail to absolutely nothing unless they're lucky enough to have a supportive partner. That's a very small percentage. Some have parents or family members who are still supportive, but in general they come out on their own, so having a halfway house there is a really vital necessity for them. For some of them it's the only way they're going to get out, whereas many men, or a larger number of men, have wives or partners who are taking care of things while they're in jail. In that way, yes, it's essential.
It's also essential in terms of the unique needs of women that aren't met, particularly in provincial correctional centres. There is no programming that deals with their histories of abuse, that deals with their issues around substance abuse. I know that's true in the men's system as well, but I think what happens presently and what has happened historically is that programs are created with the male prisoner in mind and they're adapted to fit women. That just doesn't work in a lot of cases.
Mrs Boyd: There are still these CRA beds run by the Elizabeth Fry in a couple of locations, so there is still that capacity. That is what you meant by still having some beds available. How many beds do you have available?
Ms Forestell: I'm off numbers. The reason I'm not sure is because I don't know how many in each residence are for provincial and federal women, but the Elizabeth Fry societies between Brampton and Toronto probably have about 10. I apologize if I'm wrong on that -- not very many around the province. There are CRA beds in other areas. For instance, near Peterborough the Sisters of St Joseph have two beds in their residence. There's that type of thing. Ottawa's beds are gone.
One thing that worries us is that, as the task force recommended, we need to be looking at building more options. There are women throughout the north who get completely cut off from their communities when they go to any kind of incarceratory period and there's no place for them to go back to on early release. What happens to many of them, and it's similar to what happens to federal women, is that they come to Toronto or Hamilton. It's not where they're from, they don't know how to handle the city, they're not big city people and they get in trouble very, very quickly. So we just see them continue on that long pattern.
1640
Mr Frank Klees (York-Mackenzie): Could I just get clarification? I believe you indicated that you were not in favour of electronic monitoring.
Ms Forestell: That's right.
Mr Klees: I believe you also just said that it's your experience that women typically do not have the home support, the spousal support to help look after children and so on. Doesn't it follow then that there would be an advantage if these women could stay in their homes as opposed to being removed from their homes, and perhaps be able to look after the home front, so to speak, and be with their children? Wouldn't that be an appropriate way of supporting them?
Ms Forestell: At first blush, yes, and I must say that when I first heard about electronic monitoring, I thought: "Oh, isn't that wonderful. Women don't have to go to jail." However, the reality is it's not happening. It hasn't happened in the pilot projects and it's not happening in the other areas you looked at. Women are not getting sentenced to electronic monitoring instead of getting sentenced to jail terms. That isn't what's happening.
Electronic monitoring is either being used on very, very low-risk people who would get out on temporary absence or extended temporary absence programs anyway or it's being used at the front end in sentencing on people who would not normally get an incarceratory sentence. That's the first thing. It's not as good a solution because of the way it's used.
The second thing is that if women can be kept in the community in a supportive environment, then it's much more useful in terms of dealing with the issues they have and stopping that pattern of criminalization they're coming into, because many women in the provincial system are in there repeatedly and they're in there for offences that indicate some deep-seated problem. Shoplifting indicates some real problems when people shoplift over and over again no matter how many times they get caught. That's a sign that something's wrong. That's not just a sign that they like to steal.
In that sense, I have to go back to what I've said, that if electronic monitoring is all that's needed, then it's probably not needed at all. It provides nothing except it lets you know where the person is.
Mr Klees: Would you agree then to perhaps a combination of electronic monitoring with a support program? I think what we're dealing with here is the issue of halfway houses. Or do you feel it's important for them to actually be in that segregated environment as opposed to having the freedom to be at home with a supportive program to help them rehabilitate?
Ms Forestell: If they can be at home with a supportive program, it's much better than being in a halfway house in many cases. I think there are some cases that really need more supervision than that, but I am for the least level of incarceration possible. Many of the women that I see in jail should certainly not be there and should probably not be in a halfway house either. It's not necessary.
However, in terms of the use of electronic monitoring, if it's going to be used at all, then I hope it will be used with a lot of supportive programs and with a very wide range. But we all know that when programs get cut, the first things to get cut are these sort of considered optional things in the community, so that worries me.
It also worries me that, for instance, many of the Elizabeth Fry societies who were offering community after-care programs up until last year have lost the funding that allows them to do that. So in addition to their residential funding -- and not only Elizabeth Fry societies but other organizations in the province.
I'm very concerned and I often have these discussion both with you folks and the feds that it seems you're subsidizing our programs, but you have to remember that in fact we are subsidizing your programs. We are subsidizing the conditional release programs, we are subsidizing the programs for people that have come out into the community, and we subsidize those programs through our fund-raising, because, believe me, we couldn't do it for what we get paid on the contracts. That's a long meander, I know, from an answer to your question.
I can only say if electronic monitoring is used at all, it has to be used with a wide range of services and support and that the services and support have to be guaranteed. If it's going to be useful for women, it has to be used in addition to some financial assistance, to make sure that we are not disqualifying women from that option simply because they don't have a good place to live or they live with someone who is considered to be in conflict with the law or considered to be dangerous or because they can't afford a phone.
Mr Ramsay: Elizabeth, thank you very much for coming. You offer, representing the Elizabeth Fry societies, a special perspective on how the justice system treats women in society, and we appreciate that.
In fact I very much appreciated your opening. I was just commenting to my colleague Marion Boyd about this, what we call, 125 initiative in studying the closure of the CRCs and the implementation of electronic monitoring to replace those and almost trying to remember why I was so exercised about this decision in the light of all that the government has done since this decision.
This was their first entrée into reforming, as they would say, the criminal justice system. We've seen since then the go-ahead of privatization of jails. We're going to have some new superjails here run by American companies. We see in this review of police services coming up possibly the privatization of policing in Ontario. So looking back, this almost looks like a timid venture.
Ms Forestell: I hope I'll get to come talk to you about those.
Mr Ramsay: We'll probably be asking you to, so I'm glad you're willing. But your opening really brought it back to me why this provoked so much anger, because of course this was done without consultation and the offenders were literally ripped from their jobs. Some people were woken up at their residence or taken away from their job and whisked back to those jails, and it did upset the people in the community, for sure, the way this was handled, without consultation.
What continues to bother us is that many of us who work with the system feel there should be a continuum of sanctions out there, as the previous speaker had mentioned, and there's one very important, what we think is a building block in criminal justice sanctions being eliminated by this government, the CRCs, and we're very concerned about that.
You said you felt the results of this are going to be felt in a couple of years with the closing of the CRCs. Could you give us in your words specifically what you feel the result is going to be? How are the women that you deal with going to be impacted by this decision?
Ms Forestell: In terms of the impact on women, I think it's going to have an impact on the whole system; I don't think it's just going to be women. In terms of impact on women, they're not going to get out on early release. I think that's what's going to happen. Perhaps they will be found to fail consistently on electronic monitoring. I understand in some of the research I read the revocation rate looks very high on electronic monitoring and that may simply be because it's easier to get caught once you have done something. It's not easier to stop someone from doing something, but once you've done it, you're caught.
I think we're going to find it's very problematic in that it doesn't reduce recidivism, it doesn't contribute to community safety, it's not solving the problem, so I think we're going to come back to saying, "Oops, I guess we were better off with those community residences that had some built-in supports." I think once you leave this a year or two or even another few months, those infrastructures I'm hearing already about, and this is outside of the Elizabeth Fry societies, small community residences that are trying to function with only federal beds are saying: "No, we're not going to be able to do it. We're going to have to close down."
1650
In a sense the province is very lucky because it's able to purchase those beds from community residences that are in large part under contract to the feds, so I think if you lose that, it's going to be very expensive. Think of the investment that had to be put into building a few community residences a few years ago. I opened an open custody home in New Brunswick several years ago and it was very expensive to start out. I think what's going to happen is you're going to find you need these residential beds and you're going to have to start over and that's going to be very difficult.
The other thing in terms of the impact, not just in terms of expense but the impact on the people who would be using the beds, is that the experts who are there now will be gone. The pool of workers will shrink, so they're not going to get the same kind of support.
Many of the organizations, not just the residences but many of the organizations themselves will be gone because -- I'm very lucky, I work for an organization that basically doesn't have any government money so I don't have to worry about that to such a great extent, but many of our member societies and many of the service providers throughout the province are relying to such a great extent on government funding that they will not be able to survive with community support alone.
Mr Ramsay: Would you say this is an experiment that's bound to fail?
Ms Forestell: Yes, I guess I would.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Ramsay. Ms Forestell, thank you very much for your attendance today so ably representing the organizations you represent.
Now to report writing.
Firstly, you should have received from the clerk the research prepared by Ms Swift, which was a synopsis or a résumé of all the evidence heard to date except for the two witnesses today.
Secondly, you should have before you a possible, and Ms Swift puts it on no higher basis, framework for a report. The clerk has suggested that the way we proceed, if today we could give the researcher some guidance on the direction and the framework of the report, she can prepare a draft report, which would then go to the subcommittee which could work on it, hopefully very soon, and then we'd call a meeting of the committee to go over the report.
The reason for the subcommittee intervening is that we have two hours for the report, which is not enough time if we become involved, I don't think. That is the suggested method of proceeding. Are there any comments or nays as to proceeding on that basis?
Mr John L. Parker (York East): Satisfied, Mr Chair.
Mrs Boyd: Can I ask a question? One of the things I was curious about, because having not been a regular member of the Legislature this is kind of a new experience on a 125 for me, does the research report that Susan gave us all that summarizes the evidence automatically become appended to the report of the committee?
The Chair: No. According to the clerk, it can be or it cannot be. That's a decision we'll have to make. We may wish to comment on each witness as a committee in that also, so --
Ms Susan Swift: Maybe I could just jump in. Generally it is used as the context for the committee's discussions. In other words, this is what we heard from the witnesses, this is what the committee thinks, therefore the committee recommends this. So it is generally used as a context but it doesn't have to be. Mrs Boyd: Thank you very much. I just wasn't aware of what the process was and wanted to clarify that for myself.
The Chair: The first thing we should decide, the clerk has educated me that this committee should make a decision before we enter our report-writing phase as to whether we shall discuss the report in camera or in public or in a private meeting, one, I take it, that would not be reported in Hansard. Perhaps the clerk can assist in past tradition in that regard.
Clerk of the Committee (Ms Donna Bryce): It's really up to the committee to decide whether they want to do it in open or closed session. Regardless of how you proceed, the report itself will remain confidential until it's tabled to the House, until it's reported to the House.
Mr Ramsay: I don't really think it's necessary to have our deliberations in Hansard from here on in until we want to get back on the record when we're close to concluding the report and obviously making a motion to table it to the House and that sort of thing. As far as this goes, I think we wouldn't need to put it on the record.
The Chair: We could go back to the record at any time if any member wished to. Any comment from the government caucus?
Mr Parker: I would only venture the comment that I'm perfectly happy to carry on on the record, but I'm not determined to insist on that.
The Chair: It does seem a waste of money.
Mr Ramsay: A waste of money, and also if we're off the record it might facilitate discussion a little because then you don't have to worry about recognizing everybody. Everybody can sort of jump in, and I'm sure we can all get along. It might be easier for you.
The Chair: Mr Ramsay has suggested, and Ms Boyd I think is in agreement -- is there strong opposition to proceeding off the record until such time as any member of this committee wishes to go back on the record?
Mr Klees: Agreed.
The Chair: Good. We can then go off the record. Could we adjourn for two minutes and then we'll discuss the possible outline.
The committee continued in closed session at 1656.