The Conservatives have unveiled a mega bill containing a rehash of previously introduced, backwards crime legislation that threatens to wreak havoc on the Canadian justice system. Liberals opposed it then, and we continue to oppose it now — firmly.
Here are five reasons to oppose this bill on the grounds it’s bad policy. We’re not even counting the fact that Conservatives have yet to tell Canadians how much it will cost, though estimates put it at over $13 billion.
1. This bill puts wedge politics and ideology ahead of facts and evidence.
It is also worth noting that as a political device, the tough-on-crime omnibus bill is starting to look a bit long in the tooth. Recall that in 2008, the then-minority government of Stephen Harper packaged five separate crime bills into its Tackling Violent Crime Act and rammed it through Parliament as a confidence issue. Now, after three years of evidence that the violent crime rate is falling precipitously—and with cops in many cities forced to spend their shifts running speed traps and busting pot-smoking mothers—the government is simply repeating itself for reasons of political expediency.
Serious crime requires a serious response—there is no debate there. But we also need to remember that the iconic statue of justice holds a scale in her hand for a reason: justice requires balance. The government’s criminal justice policy is in danger of falling out of balance.
A tough-on-crime bill that goes too far, Macleans, August 25, 2011
2. This bill forces judges to impose mandatory minimums, turning young offenders into hardened criminals.
The Harper government wants to send more Canadian young offenders to jail and for longer periods of time, no doubt creating more recidivists. One twice-jailed young offender had the following comments on the legislation:
“For the most part, harsh sentences do not deter crime and actually work against rehabilitating offenders. My brief time in incarceration only ensconced me more deeply in the criminal culture.”
Even more absurd are the changes with respect to drug laws, described by one expert as “a wonderful gift to organized crime.” Since, once again, more Canadians will be jailed for longer periods, especially as regards marijuana-related offences, one can only conclude that the Harper government would like to imprison half the population of British Columbia.
One comical feature of this legislation is that the length of the mandatory prison sentence will depend on the number of marijuana plants grown, and whether they are grown in a prison or near a school. One can easily imagine the following comments by an arresting officer: “Pothead, if you had grown 197 plants instead of 203, and more than 150 yards from the local school, you would be spending far less time in jail.” Dumb-ass stupid …
More specifically, mandatory minimum sentences, by imposing a straitjacket on judges, limit their ability to differentiate as regards the same offence with respect to what might be completely different circumstances. Judges are human and might on occasion err; however, they are highly educated and highly trained, far better equipped to determine appropriate sentences than our members of Parliament.
Crime policy is all stick, no carrot, Montreal Gazette, August 2, 2011
3. The bill fails the mentally ill, aboriginal people, visible minorities and the poor.
One of the most controversial provisions of the omnibus crime bill is the introduction of mandatory minimum sentences. The Canadian Bar Association (CBA) says that the mandatory minimum legislation will clog the courts and fill Canadian prisons with the mentally ill and other vulnerable segments of the population, such as aboriginal people, visible minorities and the poor. Hence, the Bar Association is calling for the government to allow judges leeway in applying mandatory minimums so that they not imposed when it would be “cruel or inappropriate.”
Crime agenda: good government wanted, not ideology, Times & Transcript, August 25, 2011
Just in time for the opening of Parliament, a new book entitled A Plague of Prisons has landed in Canada.
It tells the story of the “mass incarceration” of Americans over the past 30 years, showing how it has torn families apart, exacerbated racial tensions, drained state treasuries and fostered a culture of violence and vengeance …
What makes all this relevant to Canadians in September of 2011 is that Prime Minister Stephen Harper is poised to embark on the same path the U.S. took a generation ago. Shortly after the opening of Parliament, his government will introduce a package of 12 tough crime bills. They’re guaranteed to become law; the Conservatives now have a majority in both the House of Commons and Senate …
Assuming the Prime Minister goes ahead, here is what Canadians can expect:
- An exponential growth in prisons. The Conservatives have refused to provide taxpayers with a credible estimate of how much they plan to spend on penitentiaries. It won’t be as costly as the American crackdown, which threatens to bankrupt several states, but the bills will keep mounting long after Harper’s departure.
- A deterioration of the social structures that communities need to prevent crime.
- A disproportionate increase in the number of poor, non-white people behind bars.
- A belated recognition that there was never any evidence tougher sentences improve public safety.
- And over time, a made-in-Ottawa “plague of prisons.”
Goar: Timely warning for Canada about prisons, Toronto Star, September 8, 2011
5. This bill is “Just the beginning”…
“This is just the beginning,” says Justice Minister Robert Nicholson. That is worrying. The government is obsessed with the tough-on-crime-and-drugs approach of the United States, even as U.S. conservatives move in the other direction – the Canadian one – because jail costs are outstripping investments in higher education. (California, step forward.) Even where a tougher approach is called for, it is not enough. The government should also be spending some of its political capital, energy and money to address the causes of crime, including poor mental health, addictions and child poverty.
The Conservatives’ crime obsession is not magnificent, Globe and Mail, September 21, 2011
‘A Conservative is a Liberal that hasn’t been mugged yet’.
We’ve all heard that expression, I’m sure. Well that’s what this crime bill is really all about. This bill will create MORE hardened criminals. More hardened criminals will create more crime and more crime means more victims.
More victims? Means more people supporting Conservative principles of punishment over compassion. Punishment over rehabilitation.
This bill is a step towards a very different Canada and let’s face it; that’s not what we want or what we asked for.
This bill has to be opposed by as many Canadians as possible. This is not the United States. Yet.
The science proves that this omnibus crime bill is wrong,and achieves the opposite of what is claimed as the achievement goal.Canada will become a more crime ridden violant society as a result of this omnibus crime bill.
This omnibus crime bill looks to me to be the biggest attack on canadian society that i have seen since being born in the early 1960s.And like one of the orchestrators proclaims,this is just the beginning.They will keep winning for a while,and the resultant harm on humans will grow in effect.At the same time the majority of canadians know that this crime bill is wrong,and shows clearly what type of unenlightened mentality continues to push this omnibus crime bill in play.The science proves hands down that this omnibus crime bill is wrong.Canada now will become more and more of a crime ridden violant society.Learn about this group that orchestrates such destruction,they understand fully what they are doing.Monsters in the world do not survive when they stop being fed.
This crime bill is so far right its reform of the worst kind.If people are going to get long jail terms than they have nothing to lose so they will act with violence to keep out of jail.Do people care about pot growers I do not and I don’t smoke pot.Once the little guy is in jail the organised crime begins kids join gangs to feel protected . Long jail terms for the addicted and mentally ill no treatment sick . Sounds like work houses and chain gangs are in the works.What cuts will the have to be made to pay for this bill.
I believe the strategy behind this “CRIME BILL” is simple. The Conservatives want more crime because more crime means more victims.
And more victims means more Conservatives.
Isn’t there an old saying, “A Liberal is just a Conservative that hasn’t been mugged yet”?
More criminals. More victims. More fear. More Conservative values.
More victims means more people beginning to see the poor and marginalized differently. If you or a close friend or family member were victimized it might change the way you look at crime and criminals.
Most criminals are the poor and displaced of society. Canada has traditionally been compassionate to both. Young foolish people, old unemployed and hopeless people that make mistakes.
One sure fire way of getting the electorate to support the idea that we shouldn’t be helping the poor and the marginalized is to paint them as criminals. Loafers. Bad people who choose to do bad. To make you value one class of citizen over another. The real payoff here is that more citizens of this country WILL become poor and marginalized under the new crime legislation and under the – soon to follow – social support cutbacks and other austerity measures. One strategic Conservative idea supporting the other.
The problem with Liberal thinking today in this country is that it isn’t desperately fighting for it’s life, for it’s future, like Conservatism is and has been.
It’s time for Liberals to wake up and become more shrewd and strategic like their Conservative opponents are. Plan for the future. Create more Liberal voters, more liberal thinkers like their Conservative counterparts do.
Attack this austerity myth head on. Deny it now because it’s a slow ship to turn around. Do it now. Before it’s too late because everyday the center is moving further to the right and, if it’s not too late already, we’ll all have to play by their rules.
The Liberals need a long term strategy to change Canada’s values or at the very least, maintain them. The Conservatives have their strategy in play and it’s working. Fear that.
It is very important to oppose this bill, but the public isn’t voting on this directly (even though I think we should for important things like this which affect us so much) so what are we to do? All we can do is sit back and hope that the Conservative majority doesn’t manage to get it through.
I am very worried, please merge or at least create a coalition with the NDPs. I think together you could win and be the majority again. I’m not sure why so many are against this idea, do you two really disagree so intensely that it’s more important than stopping this onslaught?
a merger would give the Conservatives more support. As many of the Liberals are centrist and might be pushed to go to the Conservatives versus the NDP which has a completely different ideology then us.
#crime #budget We can save a ton of money for Canada by cancelling this bill. We simply do not need such draconian measures. Before you know it we’ll be fighting the death penalty again. If you look at the USA you’ll know that the number of lethal crimes is worst in the two states that execute the most people. No way is the death penalty a deterrent. No way is an eye-for-an-eye response going to deter crime in Canada either.
Sadly, people have been trying to control crime and create a nice society using harsh punishments since the Old Kingdom in Egypt. It didn’t work in the Old Kingdom or any jurisdiction since. Mr. Harper seems to have a soft-spot for six-thousand-year-old failures that he seems convinced will suddenly and miraculously work in Canada. Our little provincial buddy Hudak is more of the same with his chain-gang scheme. I can get my lawn cut (about four acres) for around $75 via one of the local gardening outfits, but if I had Timmy come over with his chain-gang it would cost thousands because of the security required. It is a whisky-inspired notion if ever there was one, but it unfortunately seems to resonate with the red-necks.
Once passed, the new Omnibus Crime laws are expected to increase the number of inmates in the country substantially, but unfortunately, we have no idea how much this little experiment in justice is going to cost us: http://bit.ly/nCZa9b
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=io-TBjpOJGE&feature=player_detailpage
http://thechronicleherald.ca/Front/1264238.html
http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/article/1057004–crime-isn-t-our-big-worry
‘Sustainable prisons’: does anyone think they may not understand what “sustainable” really means? Was Rob Nicholson talking about the costs being ‘sustainable’? Meaning “we have the capacity to pay for the increased costs, even though we are in a deficit position.” ??
Are they just going to download the extra costs to the Provinces and Territories?
I have no problem with deficit spending if it is for Canada’s long term economic benefit. I’m not so sure if increased incarcerations have an economic benefit though.
Is the procedural delay on the Conservatives’ omnibus crime bill, debating a change to the proposed package of justice reforms going to be able to end its passage through the House of Commons? http://bit.ly/oiuXO3
California Budget problems can be blamed a lot on the Tough on Crime bills that that state passed. Today the cost of just keeping up with the prisons which are overcrowded completely is 10 billion dollars a year. Instead of wasting our money creating more crime which this bill will do why don’t the Conservative use this money to cut the corporate tax rate even more. At least that will do much less damage or 13 more G8-G20 summits maybe this time put in Montreal I would like a fake lake to go to.
If harsher punishment was directly related to lower crime as being a deterrent, why does the US have a higher rate of murder in spite of capital punishment? The state of Texas has more than double the number of murders than all of Canada in spite of having the harshest penalties, the highest use of capital punshment, and a much smaller population.
If criminals in Texas are not deterred by the death penalty, why would criminals in Canada be deterred by an increase of ten percent additional jail time. If 20 years in prison doesn’t change their mind about committing a crime, why would 22 years do it (or whatever Harper plans to add to the penalty)?
I’m not specifically opposed to the punishment aspect of the legislation, as I think that people who do the crime need to do the time, but I do think the Tories are handling this in the wrong way, especially their refusal to answer the question of how much it would cost. Frankly, the answer is “Very little since we are going to make the Provinces pay the bulk of the bill weather or not they want to.”
There may be another cynical point to this considering the mindset of Stephen Harper. That is, he might be inventing a crisis as a smokescreen to his incompetence in realistically managing the economy and the potential economic problems quite possibly heading this way. Economically, on a topical things might be looking ok in Canada for now, but does the Conservative government really have any pragmatic contingency should the economy change?
Crime must be taken seriously, but do we really have such a serious crime problem in this country that warrants this level of political intervention, or should I say interference? All kinds of statistics are showing that crime in Canada is on the decline, with 2010 being the lowest year for crime in Canada. Though anyone can be a victim of crime anytime, be it a petty crime or otherwise, but I do not in any way feel threatened or unsafe in this country. This is bill represents Stephen’s Harper’s ideological fantasy and extremism that has nothing to do with reality. Similar to his arrogant demeanour at International Relations, where he is successfully lowering our once potent and revered International Relations stance to that of the Americans – wedge politics, us versus them mentality.
We have a lot more to worry about in this country for example, deficit, strengthening our GDP through new markets and not being so heavily dependant on US trade and investment, the environment, health care, education, rejuvenating our tourism industry (a great source of foreign direct revenues), government accountability and transparency (particularly with this Conservative government), safeguarding our political and social institutions that have made Canada a leading first world nation, and critically important, eradicating poverty and greater social equality and justice.
While I agree that screws can be tightened with crime, this bill is nothing but a smokescreen from Stephen Harper.
I share in Mr.Rae’s worry about the Conservatives assertion that, “there is more to come.” Are we going to become a police state?
I believe we should make a point to say that criminal platforms, or crime platforms should be about focussing on preventing victims from happening, not focussing on punishment after the fact. I would greatly prefer the child never gets molested than to pump my chest (as the Harperites seem to do) at how the criminal was punished AFTER the act. That does nothing for the victim.
This crime bill goes a way beyond what is needed to protect society, Can any one tell me how longer sentences will protect me and my family. At some point the criminal is going to be released back into the society from which they came, will that person be able to adjust to the society as it now exists, which will be much different than it was when that person went to prision or will we have to put this person on long term disability as the exoffender no longer having the skills to find and keep employment.
I also have another point of interest: When a person was sentensed to do time for a crime they committed many years ago, the Judge took into consideration at the time of sentencing when this person would qualify for a pardon, if the government changes the Pardon Act and grandfathers it back to the begining of time, then is the government not extending the sentence and over riding the sentence that was made by the Judge at the time of sentenceing.
Your thoughts would be appreciated
RLR
Can anyone explain the reasoning behind Vic Toews continuing to say “that only about 30 per cent of Canadians who were victims of crimes reported those crimes to police.”
How can he count unreported crime in order to determine a percentage of crimes that get reported? I can understand 70% of murder victims being able to get to the phone, or 70% of pot smokers failing to report the crime of buying an illegal bag of pot, but really it looks like a number pulled out of thin air.
You would have to think an unreported crime would be a minor offence not punishable by jail time. It’s pretty safe to say a crime serious enough to warrent jail time is going to be reported, robery, homicide, etc. Does Harper plan to jail people for spray painting a garbage can, or complain about the government on the internet?
Does more jail time for current offences require elaborate expenses when the total number of crimes punishable by jail is decreasing?
Having worked for many years on the social services front line, in the youth justice system, community development and in policy and strategic planning, I am well aware of what works. Education, support to families, quality preschool education, employment opportunites and well established afterschool programs all combine to prevent crime and help newcomers integrate into Canadian society. Improving housing stock, increased green space and strong neighbourhoods are equally important. The answers are there. Unfortunately, Conservatives are not concerned about the well being of the Canadian majority.
Professor Dolovich is a national expert on the constitutional law of prisons. Her research focuses on the law, policy and theory of prisons and punishment, and she teaches courses on prison law, criminal law, and the Eighth Amendment. Regular publishers include N.Y.U. Law Review,Harvard Law and Policy Review and others.
A Canadian, Professor Dolovich currently teaches at Harvard Law School, a position she has held since 2000. Her work can be found at:
http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/19/
Jeffrey, I think it’s best to limit the number of people saying the same thing at the same time. Don’t want to end up looking like the same poster saying the same thing a hundred times over, or a collection of paid message correcters all quoting the same talking points.
If you want an exmple of what I’m talking about, check out the CBC news site and read the comment section at the bottom of most articles. Most of the Conservative supporters babble the same lame message and seldom with little variation to the wording. I’m starting to miss Soudas, all the “Praise Harper, he’s the bestest PM ever” posts are getting annoying.
Then notice the posts by Liberal supporters. Probably an equal number of posts, but everyone is stating an entirely different viewpoint in an entirely different manner, using their own words. IMO, it’s better to have everyone come up with their own opnion and avoid using the same references and let individuality differentiate us from them. Kind of hard to work around that Tea Party Consrevative refence, though. It’s like talking about automobiles without using the name ‘cars’.
One good thing about that board though, it confirms that in spite of our poor showing at the polls, there are a lot of Liberal supporters out there, talking about the Liberal position on all the issues of importance.
Hi Philip,
5 reasons were provided with articles as reference:
1. This bill puts wedge politics and ideology ahead of facts and evidence.
2. This bill forces judges to impose mandatory minimums, turning young offenders into hardened criminals.
3. The bill fails the mentally ill, aboriginal people, visible minorities and the poor.
4. This bill repeats the mistakes of failed, expensive, discredited American crime policy.
5. This bill is “Just the beginning”…
As an LPC member, do you agree that we should oppose this bill or do you disagree? Why or why not? Our members’ input is always welcome so we look forward to reading your ideas and feedback.
Hi Andre,
It certainly was not easy to find the bill in question…here is a link to it http://www.parl.gc.ca/content/hoc/Bills/411/Government/C-10/C-10_1/C-10_1.PDF
- From what I can see, the bill is 152 pages of amendments to numerous existing laws.
- I could not find a document that compares original bill language with new language side-by-side – explaining: reasoning behind amendments; implications of updated language in terms of how it will affect society and ‘criminals’; how this will make society safer or better; and what the cost to society will be. Does anybody know of any document that does such a comparison and analysis of these amendments? If not why not?
- I think it impossible for most people to do such a review of these amendments without a law degree. One must understand the nuances of language used in laws to do such a review. (Basically I don’t think most people could read a law and understand what it really means – which is a bit crazy in my mind – as it is impossible for the layman (including myself) to know if they are breaking a law or not without having a lawyer at their disposal – but that is another conversation.)
- I would guess that a few of the amendments would be reasonable but others misguided (according to Liberal values and principles). I think it is important for Liberals (and perhaps other interested groups) to review every single amendment and determine their implications and if they make sense and/or are in concert with Liberal values and principles. And if not then make recommendations as to what would be a reasonable amendment if needed. And to make this bill review available to the general public – detailing what amendments are acceptable, which are not and recommended changes to the amendments where needed.
- Of course this review process would be a lot of work…but that is what people are paying you for…and also I’m told that there are lots of lawyers (and other skilled people) that are drawn to the Liberal party… perhaps we could use Liberal members collective skills to have an effective and efficient bill review process as detailed above.
- For the most part – I don’t think people will act differently because of these amended laws.
- I think the philosophy behind the conservatives reasoning for these amendments is that by making laws stricter and putting people in jail longer this will solve our social problems. While I would guess the main underlying reason why many of these people who break these laws has more to do with mental health issues and financial issues – and longer jail time will not resolve these issues just hide them.
- However I do think if certain people are a danger to society and will continue to be a danger to society no matter how much jail time or counseling they get, then these people should be removed from society. But also as a society we should have a conversation/debate on way to best address these issues and what is an acceptable means to deal with these problematic people.
- I think it would be more effective to review and (or perhaps actually listen to the reviews that exist) the root causes of these mental health issues and deal with these underlining issues rather than longer jail times.
- And finally…I think there should be some sort of restriction or law again omnibus bills – unless the laws being amended are closely related to each other – and then restrict the number of laws being amended to a reasonable number.
Hmmmm…
Note to be difficult but…
I can read news papers and quote them also – that is easy.
What is the LPC reasons to oppose the omnibus crime bill?
Thanks.
Phil
I suggest that if it’s fleshed out reasoning you’re after you’d be well served following the filibuster. It starts here:
http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/GetWebOptionsCallBack.aspx?SourceSystem=PRISM&ResourceType=Affiliation&ResourceID=170396&language=1&DisplayMode=2
in the Hansards. (Kevin seconded! heh. Really? That’s my riding. He just earned my 5 bucks a month)
I also suggest that if its essays on the internet you’re looking for that’s a lot to ask of volunteers but I won’t stand in your way if you want to pony up the cash it takes to staff the activity.
grrr.
http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=41&Ses=1&DocId=5127416 #Int-4262683
That’s the proper link. Sorry. Should have tested the other one first. Must have been upgraded.
The omnibus crime bill is just another reason why it is important to keep portraying the Conservatives as “extreme”, “far-right”, “Tea Party”, “American-style” (i.e. Un-Canadian) etc. We must claim the middle. The Ontario Liberals have been successful in this against Hudak. Harper, Hudak, Ford – one big B.B.Q.!