Costly Tory crime bill passes

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,778
454
83
Contentious Tory crime bill passes, as country’s biggest provinces voice concerns over costs

OTTAWA — The Conservatives have used their majority to pass the so-called omnibus crime bill within the first 100 sitting days of Parliament as promised, despite continued opposition from Canada’s largest provinces which vowed Monday not to sit back idly as the measures come into force.

The deeply polarizing Safe Streets and Communities Act, which passed by a vote of 154 to 129, effectively will become law in a matter of hours, if not days, when the bill receives royal assent. The Tories will mark their 100 day milestone on Friday.

“These are very reasonable measures. They go after those who sexually exploit children, people in the child pornography business and it goes after drug traffickers,” Justice Minister Rob Nicholson said hours before the final vote.

“This will be welcomed, particularly by victims, those involved with law enforcement and, as we know, Canadians are supportive of what we are doing in this area.”

While critics fear the bill will have little impact on reducing crime and may even harden some offenders, Nicholson offered little about how the success of the bill might be measured.

“We have a number of strategies,”Nicholson said. “But, again, this sends the message out to people (that) if you get involved with this kind of activity, there will be consequences.”

As per his promise to the provinces, Nicholson said the implementation of the various aspects of legislation will be “spaced out” over a period of time, though it seemed to provide little comfort to his regional counterparts.

Ontario Community Safety and Correctional Services Minister Madeleine Meilleur said in a statement Monday that: “Ontario taxpayers cannot be expected to pay the full costs for federal anti-crime initiatives” which the province has pegged at more than $1 billion.

Ontario anticipates the bill will result in an additional 1,500 inmates and will require the construction of a 1,000 bed facility to accommodate them. The province, she added, is already looking forward to opening two new facilities in Toronto and Windsor to replace older jails, but that initiative never anticipated the impact of the omnibus crime bill.

“With the opening of the two new state-of-the-art facilities . . . we have taken appropriate steps to address Ontario’s future inmate capacity needs,” she said.

“We expect Ottawa to do what’s right and provide additional funding to help Ontario deal with the consequences of Bill C-10.”

She called on Ottawa to create a federal-provincial task force to discuss the impact of the legislation and to explore solutions. If a suitable agreement to help defray the costs isn’t found, Meilleur said Ontario may look at other options, including reviewing its current custodial service agreements with the federal government.

The Quebec government, which has been among the most vocal critics of the bill, also was quick to express its disappointment Monday.

“We would have preferred Parliament accept the amendments put forward by the Quebec government in conjunction with a number of organizations,” Quebec Justice Minister Jean-Marc Fournier said in a statement.

The amendments were brought forward by Quebec last fall in a bid to address its concerns about C-10’s impact on youth rehabilitation programs. Fournier left Ottawa fuming last November after his request went nowhere.

While the province supports a number of the provisions contained in C-10, he said the bill as a whole “harms” the province’s prevention and reintegration programs.

He said his government would unveil Tuesday new measures to combat recidivism.

“As the attorney general, it is my responsibility to apply criminal laws but it’s also my responsibility to safeguard the public and prevent recidivism,” he said.

Quebec has estimated the new measures would cost the province $600 million and also has vowed not to pay for it.

The final vote on C-10 was to take place last week but the NDP employed a series of procedural delaying tactics, including trying to adjourn the House of Commons, which saw the vote pushed back to Monday.

Justice critic Jack Harris made no apology for stalling the bill, which does far more than target child sex offenders.

Had the Tories broken the bill up into bite-sized pieces, Harris said the official Opposition would have been happy to support elements related to mandatory minimums for child sex offenders.

“They refused to do that and, you know, the contentious parts of the bill are still there,” he said. “We think it will lead to more punishment but not safer streets, not a deterrence against criminals and in fact there will be more victims, more crimes and less safety on our streets.”

Comprised of nine bills, many of which failed to pass in previous Parliaments when the Conservatives had a minority, C-10 also cracks down on pot producers, young offenders, Canadians imprisoned abroad who are seeking a transfer to a Canadian institution and ex-cons seeking a pardon.

It also provides for victims of terrorism who are seeking to sue the perpetrator and eliminates house arrest for a number of different crimes, something Canada’s budget watchdog estimated will cost the provinces $145 million a year.

The government has been coy about the overall cost to the provinces and has insisted the entire Safe Streets and Communities Act will run the federal government $78.6 million over five years.

Tory crime Bill C-10 passes, as country's biggest provinces voice concerns over costs | News | National Post
 

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
36,362
4,337
113
Vancouver Island
There are parts of the bill I like and parts I am not too keen on. Perhaps it will be simpler to amend some of the bad parts later. There is still the matter of police having to catch criminals and the just us system having to charge and prosecute the cases for it to have an impact.
 

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
36,362
4,337
113
Vancouver Island
Why are we spending money on this?

I can think of a way to make this work to our benefit. But it would require forethought, something the legal system is not good at.
Since a lot of the criminal activity aside from pedophiles is drug related the smart thing to do would to make any inmates with an addiction problem attend treatment. SInce they are already locked up it should make them easier to administer.
 

Cliffy

Standing Member
Nov 19, 2008
44,850
192
63
Nakusp, BC
What amazes me is that there are still some people who think government is capable of doing anything useful. To some, cutting support for education, the environment and the medical system and spending it on prisons makes sense. I'm beginning to wonder when all the free frontal lobotomies were performed.
 

wulfie68

Council Member
Mar 29, 2009
2,014
24
38
Calgary, AB
What amazes me is that there are still some people who think government is capable of doing anything useful. To some, cutting support for education, the environment and the medical system and spending it on prisons makes sense. I'm beginning to wonder when all the free frontal lobotomies were performed.

Government is a necessary evil. Its not efficient, its not compassionate or fair and it is capable of enormous screw ups but it addresses needs that no other organizations will or would if they had a chance.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
109,389
11,448
113
Low Earth Orbit
Government is a necessary evil. Its not efficient, its not compassionate or fair and it is capable of enormous screw ups but it addresses needs that no other organizations will or would if they had a chance.
In the lsast century how many people trusted and were then killled by their own governments? 50 Million? 100 Million? 200 Million?
 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,778
454
83
What amazes me is that there are still some people who think government is capable of doing anything useful. To some, cutting support for education, the environment and the medical system and spending it on prisons makes sense. I'm beginning to wonder when all the free frontal lobotomies were performed.

We need government.

An ideal society would have an accountable government that represents it's people or at least the well-being of it's people. We cannot just co-ordinate ourselves to represent others, and if we do, then we are simply forming the basis for a government.

As technology and society evolve, government will become more accountable as long as people increasingly take an interest in politics.

In the lsast century how many people trusted and were then killled by their own governments? 50 Million? 100 Million? 200 Million?

Communication technology and an active public are the remedy to these problems.
 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,778
454
83
I wish I could agree but they had all that back in the day too.

And we're already noticing that politicians actually have less influence as social groups become better organized. It's no surprise that the internet is already breeding protesters in numbers that never existed before.
 

WLDB

Senate Member
Jun 24, 2011
6,182
0
36
Ottawa
Im fine with what the bill says on murder, pedophilia and crimes that actually hurt people. The youth thing Im iffy on. I think sentences should be a bit harsher on some offences but at that age the focus should be on rehabilitation unless its cold blooded murder.

The drug stuff is where I have the problem. We're taking two steps back on that one. It is a total waste of money to lock up people for that stuff, unless they became violent or killed someone.
 

eh1eh

Blah Blah Blah
Aug 31, 2006
10,749
103
48
Under a Lone Palm
I can't wait for crime to drop off significantly due to this well thought out plan that hasn't panned out in other jurisdictions that do this stupid sh!t. Makes me ashamed to say I'm conservative. Really! These douche bags can't see the facts.
 

Niflmir

A modern nomad
Dec 18, 2006
3,460
58
48
Leiden, the Netherlands

When the Tories were introducing their mandatory minimum sentences the first time around, the Bloc Quebecois were quick to point out that if you remove discretion from sentencing, then judges would instead just use their discretion on convicting. That is to say, if the judge knows that the mandatory minimum for aggravated sexual assault is 10 years (I don't recall what it is or if it has been changed, so bear with me) then they may instead only convict the person for aggravated assault if the minimum is 2 years with 3 years of house arrest. It is worse with plea bargaining, in this case the police have lost bargaining power and won't be able to utilize plea bargaining as much to get a conviction.
 

Cliffy

Standing Member
Nov 19, 2008
44,850
192
63
Nakusp, BC
I'm not saying we don't need government. I'm saying that we need less centralized government. Federal governments are just as open to corruption as large international unions and corporations. Those with the money can buy favour and dictate policy in their favour. What we need is a federal system that only deals with foreign policy and trade. Perhaps even take away some of provincial powers and give more to civic and regional governments.