Canada Should Learn From Measures Implemented Elsewhere

Canada’s federal government’s “tough-on-crime” package is headed in the wrong direction.

Researchers Alana Cook and Ronald Roesch of Simon Fraser University’s psychology department reviewed data from other jurisdictions that have already implemented some of the policies that Canada’s federal government is now pursuing relevant to cost, effect on crime rates, and impact on vulnerable populations. The results show that key elements have proven costly and ineffective in other countries.

Many changes to the Criminal Code that have been either enacted or proposed have the effect of increasing prison terms. However, analyses of studies conducted in Canada indicate that longer prison terms result in criminals being slightly more likely to reoffend upon release. Also, first nations and the mentally ill will be discriminated against.

Mandatory minimum sentences for certain crimes will increase both the number of prisoners in the system and the length of sentence they serve. Yet research from the United States suggests they result in people who are not a threat to society being incarcerated and that prosecutors in that country often did not file charges calling for the mandatory minimum sentence even when the evidence was present. Research from South Africa suggested that the introduction of mandatory minimums in that country resulted in overcrowding of prisons and disproportionate prison sentences to offences.

The report points out that the reforms will also come at a significant cost to taxpayers. In the US, according to one study, a tripling of the incarceration rate over a 20-year period as a result of tougher crime laws resulted in a $43 billion increase in the amount of tax revenue spent on the prison system.

The researchers pointed out that studies suggest prisons in Canada are already overcrowded, the number of times guards have to use force against prisoners is increasing, and inmates have limited access to correctional programs. An increased prison population will only exacerbate these conditions.

Both first nations and the mentally ill are already over-represented in the prison system. First nations make up 4 percent of Canada’s population, but 20 percent of inmates. The proportion of Canadian inmates with mental illness is three times higher than in the general population. Mandatory minimum sentences will thus disproportionately affect these groups.

Cook and Roesch concluded that community-based programs targeting at-risk youth are more effective than incarceration at reducing crime rates and come with a much lower price tag. Researchers in California found that such programs working with at-risk youth are more effective and cost significantly less per person. 

The U.S. - The New No-Fly Zone for Record Holders

On March 23, 2011, “Bill C-42: An Act to Amend the Aeronautics Act” received Royal assent and became law in Canada. Prior to passage of the amendment, the Aeronautics Act already permitted airline operators to share passenger data with foreign agencies that govern an international flight’s destination. This new amendment extends this information sharing by allowing the airlines to share passenger data with US transportation authorities for any flight that enters US airspace, even if that flight never touches down on US soil.

So what does this mean for the traveling public in Canada? Practically speaking, it means carriers must comply with the US Secure Flight Program by providing Passenger Name Records (PNRs) to US authorities for passengers ticketed on flights originating in Canada that either enters US airspace or that have an emergency alternate landing site in the US.  The PNRs are provided to US authorities 72 hours in advance of departure for the purpose of screening against the Terrorism Screening Center’s No Fly List prior to boarding. If US authorities deem that a passenger represents a security risk, that passenger will be subject to additional screening and may be denied boarding.

There have already been documented instances of travelers being denied boarding in Canada as a result of this new legislation. Unfortunately there is little that the traveling public can do in advance of departure to ensure they do not run afoul of the new policies. If a passenger has an existing redress number issued by the Department of Homeland Security then providing that information at the time of booking should prevent problems on the day of departure, but for travelers who have never had problems before (and who would therefore not have a redress number), there now exists this additional source of concern that their ability to travel 

domestically or internationally is ultimately at the discretion of the US Government.

Travel Services should inform their clients of this change in regulation and suggest that a criminal record check, a U.S. Entry Waiver or a Canadian Pardon are services and rights that are available to all Canadians.