Election
2004 Vote for Equality - Home
> Tools & Resources > Questions for
Candidates
CAEFS'
Election Questions
Canadian
Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies (CAEFS)
1.
Social Assistance and the Right to Welfare in Canada
Background:
In 1996, the federal government virtually eliminated national
standards for social services, health services and education. This
meant that the provincial governments were no longer required to ensure
that monies provided to the provinces by the federal government from
federal tax revenues be prioritized to provide social services, health
services and education services.
This move also
provided an opportunity for the provinces free reign in how they spent
tax dollars. In most provinces in Canada, this now means that welfare
rates and other social services, as well as health, especially mental
health services, and educational services have been brutally slashed.
The results are that increasing numbers of people are literally dropping
through the increasingly drafty social safety net, while others are
being scooped up and criminalized, resulting in ensnarement in the
ever stickier social control network of our criminal justice system.
It is the most expensive and punitive, yet least effective, means
of addressing social issues.
At the same time
as we are seeing the retreat of the state, in terms of the provision
of support services, we are seeing the incredible intrusion of the
state in terms of increased security and control interventions. The
result is that we are also seeing increased criminalization of those
who are most marginalized. This has a profound impact upon the inherent
inequalities of women and girls, especially those who are poor, racialized
and who have mental health issues.
Accordingly,
our question to each candidate is:
Canada
now has over 5 million poor people, 70% of whom are women and
children. More and more are failing to thrive and ending up on
the streets, in jail or dead. Are you and your Party prepared
to adopt national standards that guarantee the right to adequate
income assistance, such as welfare, for all who need it?
Further,
if you are elected, what are the concrete action steps you will
immediately implement to ensure national standards for appropriate
and adequate social services, health services and educational
services in Canada?
Supplementary
Questions:
Given
that you have indicated a will to act upon this; will you and
your Party be speaking out immediately against the inadequacy
of social assistance for poor Canadians?
When
can we expect this statement to be produced?
Are
you saying it now?
2. Women's Equality
Background:
Women
make up the majority (52%) of our population, yet women continue to
be vulnerable and marginalized in Canada. While wealth is steadily
accumulating, 2/3 of people live in poverty, 70% of them are women
and children. International financial and commercial globalization
also import patriarchal and capitalist systems of power, control and
commodification.
There has been
much written about the increased poverty, violence and marginalization
of women over the past two decades in Canada. Most recently, in 2000,
the Canadian Women's World March Committee, of which CAEFS was a part,
and in 2003, the Canadian Association of Sexual Assault Centres (CASAC),
to which CAEFS contributed, documented a number of steps and made
very concrete recommendations as to how women's equality could be
achieved in Canada.
The Women's World
March Committee recommended a series of steps http://www.marchemondiale.org/en/charter.html
to reverse current systems of patriarchal, capitalist and racist domination
and ensure equitable distribution of wealth, employment, access to
housing, education, justice, democratic representation, energy, transportation,
health, leisure and cultural services and activities.
The CASAC report,
Canada's Promises to Keep: The Charter and Violence Against Women,
focuses upon the manner in which political and economic decisions
impact violence against women. This report identifies the indivisibility
of women's rights and equality, while also examining the issues of
women's victimization and criminalization.
Accordingly,
my questions to you are:
Do you
and your Party support the recommendations of the Canadian Women's
World March Committee and CASAC regarding the economic and social
policy steps required to end violence against women and poverty?
How will
you and your Party ensure that the equality guarantees in s. 15
of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms are honoured and
upheld?
Is your
Party prepared to provide $50 million in core funding for women's
equality-seeking groups?
Supplementary
Question(s):
If so,
how do you plan to ensure there are concrete action steps implemented
in order to ensure the recommendations are realized?
If not,
please explain why you do not support women's equality in Canada?
3. Increased Criminalization
of Women and Girls
Background:
The vast majority of people living below the poverty line are women
and children. Cuts to social services, health services, educational
services and vocational training programs, combined with increasingly
globalized economies and the current backlash against women, have
all contributed to increased vulnerability of women, especially those
who are poor, racialized, as well as those with significant mental
health issues.
Although women
are seen as far less likely to pose much of a risk or danger to the
public, they are one of the fastest growing prison populations. The
increased imprisonment of women is directly related to the decreases
in social services and health services, such as public housing, welfare,
child care supports, inpatient and outpatient mental health services.
In fact, the inadequacy of welfare and homelessness are at crisis
proportions in Canada.
Accordingly,
my questions to you are:
Do you
and your Party support the recommendations of the Canadian Human
Rights Commission, especially those regarding the need for a complete
review of the manner in which women are assessed, classified and
what services and programs are provided in prison and in the community?
Supplementary
Questions:
If
so, what concrete action steps are you taking to ensure its full
implementation?
If
not, on what basis are you not supporting the protection of the
Human Rights of all women in Canada?
4. Community Based Sentencing and
Release Options for Women
Background:
Currently, there are approximately 810 women serving federal
sentences (2 years or more). Of these, about 48% are incarcerated
and about 52% are serving the remainder of their sentences in the
community under various forms of conditional release (day parole,
full parole or statutory release). However, with respect to the Aboriginal
women population (172), further challenges remain as almost 60% (103)
of Aboriginal women are incarcerated compared to just over 40% (72)
who are in the community. As such, the gross over-representation of
Aboriginal women in prison necessitates the sorts of changes CAEFS
has been advocating and that the CAEFS' network has been working to
provide.
In addition, too
many women stay in prison long past all their eligibility dates. Moreover,
the prisons are ill-equipped to deal with the many challenges of reintegrating
women into their communities after imprisonment. More often, they
actually make such pre-existing challenges worse. Poverty, as well
as the compounding discriminatory factors of racism, class bias and
the stigma of being labeled a "criminal", makes it increasingly
difficult for women to integrate into the community.
Funding is overwhelmingly
devoted to the use of imprisonment. The Canadian Human Rights Commission
recently issued a report calling for significant changes within the
criminal justice system, particularly as they impact women, especially
Aboriginal women and women with mental health issues. In addition,
as the Auditor General, the all-party Parliamentary Public Accounts
Committee, and the Canadian Human Rights Commission recommendations
pointed out in reports that came out over the past year, the Correctional
Service of Canada spends many millions of dollars to operate the women's
prisons, and a comparable pittance funding releasing options for women
exiting prison.
Accordingly,
my questions to you are:
What
concrete actions would you and your Party take to ensure that
community based sentencing and release options exist for people
who are criminalized and /or exiting prison?
Would
you and your Party support the implementation of charging, prosecutorial
and sentencing guidelines that, like the new provisions of the
Youth Criminal Justice Act for young people, required the criminal
justice system to focus on non-carceral responses to women's criminalization?
Would
you and your Party support the use of non-prison sentencing options
for the 80% of women convicted of poverty-related offences?
5. How Programming In Canada's Prisons
Fails Women
Background:
Training, educational and therapeutic programs do not meet the needs
of the women in Canada's prisons. Although it is clear the programs
are not comparable in quantity, quality or variety to those provided
to sentenced men, it is not useful to make simple comparisons between
programs for men and programs for women. Instead, the particular needs
and interests of women prisoners must be examined to ensure substantial
equality, and allow women prisoners to progress toward a successful
re-integration into society.
Programs that
should prepare women for meaningful work are virtually non-existent.
In many cases, the emphasis is on traditional "female" skills,
such as cooking, cleaning, and sewing. Where promising programs do
exist, enrollment is often very limited or the equipment and training
skills taught are outdated. Limited access to job training and educational
programs directly interferes with the ability of women to meet the
terms of their "correctional treatment plan". As a result
they frequently experience delays in obtaining all forms of conditional
supervised and structured release into the community on parole.
For women with
disabilities, there are even fewer training programs geared to their
needs. Access to therapeutic counseling is very limited, especially
for those with the greatest need, most of whom spend most of their
time in virtual isolation in the segregated maximum security units.
Moreover there is a coercive nature to the therapeutic treatment offered.
Aboriginal women have limited access to programs and services of any
kind, let alone programs that meet their cultural needs.
Historically,
women have been over-represented in psychiatric facilities and under-represented
in the prison system. However, with the closure of psychiatric institutions
and increasingly overtaxed and under-resourced community based services,
Canada is now witnessing a marked increase in the number of women
with cognitive and mental disabilities who are being criminalized.
In fact, correctional research about women in prison indicates that
women prisoners have a significantly higher incidence of mental disability
including schizophrenia, major depression, substance use disorders,
psychosexual dysfunction, and antisocial personality disorder than
the general population.
In addition, incarcerated
women have a much higher incidence of a history of childhood sexual
abuse and severe physical abuse than women in the general population.
Among incarcerated Aboriginal women, who are disproportionately represented
in the federal prison system, 90% reported physical abuse and 61%
reported sexual abuse.
Accordingly,
my questions to you are:
Will
you and your Party call for the immediate implementation of the
recommendations of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, the Arbour
Commission report and the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples?
Supplementary
Questions:
If
so, what concrete action steps are you taking to ensure its full
implementation?
If
not, on what basis are you not supporting the protection of the
human rights of all women in Canada?
6. Need for Oversight of Corrections
Background:
There
have been repeated calls for correctional accountability that have
gone unheeded. These calls for accountability were reinforced by Madam
Justice Louise Arbour in her 1996 report and this year, by the Canadian
Human Rights Commission. Indeed, the Office of the Correctional Investigator,
the Task Force on Federally Sentenced Women and many previous reports
and Commissions of Inquiry, not to mention the reports of the Auditor
General and the Parliamentary Public Accounts Committee, have called
for increased accountability within corrections and between the Correctional
Service of Canada and other external bodies.
Accordingly,
my questions to you are:
Do you
and your Party support the implementation of judicial oversight
of decisions that impinge further upon the liberty interests of
prisoners, and that long term segregation, in particular, must
be reviewable by the courts?
Do you
and your Party support the implementation of an external governance
body, i.e. an office of an Inspector General of Women's Prisons,
mandated and resourced to conduct annual audits of adherence to
legislation and policy within each of the regional prisons, such
audits to be submitted to the Minister of Public Safety and the
Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights?
Do you
and your Party support the appointment of a Commissioner of Women's
Corrections to govern all matters related to federally sentenced
women, including the supervision of the wardens of the regional
prisons and the Kikawinaw of the Healing Lodge, be independent
of CSC, and report directly to the Minister of Public Safety?
Do you
and your Party support the implementation of a fund to allow women
in prison to access legal aid services to address issues related
to their conditions of imprisonment and conditional release is
needed to ensure that their rights and entitlements are realized?
7. Mandatory Minimum Sentences
Background:
Some politicians have indicated that, if elected, they plan to push
for further regressive social and criminal justice policies. Some
say they will call for a return of the death penalty. Others indicate
that they will push for longer prison sentences, including three strikes
laws, as well as additional mandatory minimum sentences for those
convicted of criminal offences.
In the United
States, mandatory minimum sentences have been utilized for much of
the past few decades. Many states are now revisiting such initiatives
because they recognize that mandatory minimum sentences do not protect
society, rehabilitate individuals, or generally contribute to the
well being of others. Most people also realize that the increased
use of mandatory minimum sentences vastly increases the cost of the
criminal justice system.
Imprisonment is
far more expensive and the most ineffective means of addressing social
problems. Accordingly, funding incarceration means that resources
are cut from social services, educational services, and employment
opportunities. Mandatory minimum sentences also mean that people who
are ensnared in the prison system are likely to be kept there for
longer periods of time.
Supporters of
mandatory minimum sentences often argue that they are of value because:
a) they deter
or prevent the particular individual who is sentenced from committing
future offences, especially while s/he is incarcerated (i.e. specific
diversion);
b) they deter
others from committing similar offences by making an example of
those who are convicted of certain offences (i.e., general deterrence);
and
c) public attitudes
are such that the Canadian electorate would not stand for people
not being punished (versus otherwise being held accountable) for
criminal convictions.
It costs anywhere
from $50,000 to $250,000 and more per year, depending upon the nature
of the prison and/or the needs of the prisoner, to keep someone in
prison in Canada. If even just half of the seven billion dollars currently
spent on imprisoning people was invested in welfare, housing, health,
education and other community based services, the resulting resources
would benefit whole communities, not merely those who are criminalized
as a result of their attempts to survive increasingly inhospitable
communities.
We respectfully
ask you:
Will
you and your Party resist attempts to bring in the death penalty
in Canada? In your answer, please outline what concrete steps
you plan to take to ensure that the death penalty is not reinstated.
Will
you and your Party resist attempts introduce more mandatory minimum
sentences?
Do
you and your Party support the repeal of existing mandatory minimum
sentences?
Supplementary
Questions:
If so,
please outline what concrete steps you plan to take to ensure
that current mandatory minimum sentences are repealed and to ensure
that no additional mandatory minimum sentences are implemented?
If not,
please outline in detail why you support mandatory minimum sentences.
Source: Canadian
Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies (CAEFS)
