The Omnibus Crime Bill - Voices of Sanity

The omnibus crime bill is 103 pages long. It holds nine separate bills, some of which will create major changes to the Canadian justice system. Harper wielded his majority as a bludgeon this week and limited debate to a mere two final days before sending it to the Conservative dominated committees for approval.


Here's what the Canadian Bar Association had to say:

The Canadian Bar Association (CBA) has concerns with several aspects of the government’s proposed omnibus crime bill, including mandatory minimum sentences and overreliance on incarceration, constraints on judges’ discretion to ensure a fair result in each case, and the Bill’s impact on specific, already disadvantaged groups. 

The Bill’s approach is contrary to what is known to lead to a safer society. The CBA is also concerned about how this omnibus process is likely to limit appropriate careful parliamentary study of the Bill’s component parts. The Bill, Safe Streets and Communities Act, was introduced today (Sept 20).

“The impact on northern residents, Aboriginal people and people with mental illness will be especially profound,” says Dan MacRury, of Sydney, Nova Scotia, chair of the CBA’s National Criminal Justice Section. The CBA believes that the Bill will make already serious criminal justice system problems much worse, with huge resource implications.

Here's what Elizabeth May, Green Party leader and MP for Saanich Gulf Islands, had to say (she had the final word) during the prematurely closed debate on the omnibus crime bill:


“Mr. Speaker, the clock is ticking and this debate is closing far too soon for those of us who believe that we are on the verge of a very large, serious mistake that future parliamentarians will have to struggle to correct.
First, let me say to the hon. government benches and the members here where we agree. I would happily vote for the Victims of Terrorism Act. I would vote to change the Criminal Records Act to replace the word “pardon” with “record suspension”. 
However, I will be forced to vote against this legislation if it comes packaged with sections that would cause this country nothing but grief.
I wish to say to all hon. members on the government side whose talking points have repeatedly forced them to say that those who question the flawed premise of mandatory minimum sentences have somehow sided with criminals against victims. Nothing could be further from the truth. Members of my family are involved in law enforcement. People close to me have been murdered.
It is not as though we side with criminals when we recognize a piece of legislation is so egregiously flawed that this place should say "no."  We look at all the evidence from criminologists, not just one or two, but all of them. We look at evidence from our own Department of Justice that studied this matter in 2002. We look at what is happening in the U.S., not only at the fact that its prisons are full of people but its prisons are full of people disproportionately low-income and black.
We also look at what could happen in this country. We have seen the report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples and the report on the Commission on Systemic Racism in the Ontario Criminal Justice System. We know that with this legislation, without a lot of changes in our system, we would disproportionately fill our jails with people who should not be in jail. 
We also know that this legislation would cost us billions, which has not been fully costed.  Yet, at the end of the day, it may actually result in weaker sentences for those who deserve higher sentences because we would ruin the opportunity for judicial discretion.
Thank you Mr. Speaker.”

If you would like to contact your own Member of Parliament, click on the link for a suggested template letter and your MP's address.


Here follows the template content:
Dear Member of Parliament,

As a voter and one of your constituents, I want to clearly express to you my concerns with and opposition to Bill C-10 – the omnibus crime bill.

This legislation is severely flawed. While there are parts of the Bill that are indeed worthwhile, I believe many of the others will only undermine and shame our entire system and ideal of justice in Canada.

I don’t want police to be able to spy on my emails and internet communications without a proper warrant from a court of law.

I do not believe a teenager charged with possessing a few pot plants should be treated more harshly than someone charged with sexually molesting a child.

In Canada we have a correctional system, not a penal system. I do not believe mandatory minimum sentences serve the best interests of justice. This legislation will fill our jails with people who should not be in jail.

I have seen the news reports from the United States. I know this approach to justice has been tried there, and it has failed.

Furthermore, as a taxpayer, I am very concerned with what this legislation is going to cost me. Each new prisoner will cost an additional $108,000 per year of my money. I understand the new prisons that will need to be built to house these extra prisoners will also cost billions more. In this time of deficits, this is not how I want my government to spend my money.

As my representative in Parliament, I am therefore calling on you now to faithfully respect the wishes of your constituents and vote against Bill C-10.

Sincerely,

Discrimination is Alive and Well in the Civilised World

What would you and the neighbours think of a mother who savagely beat her child for a speech impediment as the result of a cleft palate, or for not being able to walk quickly as the result of having a club foot?  Surely you would call the police who, in turn, would get in the social workers to do a family "investigation."  Once the newspapers got the story it would increase circulation for at least three days.

That it is happening in our midst and the parents are being protected is a point  powerfully made by Michael Coren in his article, "Common sense is the victim of discrimination."

Please read it.

Questions to ask Ontario's aspiring next premiers before going to the polls.

Tax credits for new immigrants

This whole brouhaha about the tax credit for businesses employing new foreign Ontarians (or Ontarian foreigners) is actually very unfortunate other than for the obvious reason of being xenophobic and culturally divisive. It serves Hudak right that he has gone down in the polls since he jumped on this in the hope that it would serve his purposes as a wedge issue.

However, it has served the purposes of both Hudak and McGuinty in that they can focus public attention on something relatively insignificant in the grand scheme of things and not have to explain how they will deal with the big issues of the day; somewhat like a conjurer using sleight of hand to distract you while he does his trick. From what I have been reading and reflecting upon, there are three cluster issues that politicians of the day need to address at provincial and federal levels: jobs and the economy; healthcare ; power generation and the environment. Overarching all three is the issue of taxes.

Jobs and the economy

There is a mantra that I keep hearing that lowering taxes will stimulate the economy; raising taxes will kill the economy. The assumption seems to be that if you lower taxes then people will spend that money locally in a way that will benefit local business. How much money are we talking about here? Let's say $360.00 per year for a middle class family. If that $30 per month does not result in new jobs being created locally, or in Ontarian businesses being able to use that $30 to generate another $10 or $20 or $30, then all that $30 amounts to is a politician buying votes by cutting services. An extra thirty dollars a month does not automatically spell an improvement in living standards if a single mom has greater difficulty finding a daycare spot or the family of someone who is mentally ill can no longer find the care their daughter/sister/mother needs. 

McGuinty, Hudak and Company, what exactly is your strategy for job creation and please don't tell me tax cuts or ending the gravy train.

Healthcare

The median and the average ages of the population are getting older. At the same time as a large number of Ontarians start leaving the workforce, more and more of those retirees are going to need more and more acute and long-term healthcare. Put in another way, more public healthcare is going to be needed with proportionately fewer people to pay for it. Right now, Healthcare is paid for almost entirely by taxes. Our politicians are all pledging enormous amounts of money for the future of Healthcare. Some of those same politicians are pledging to reduce taxes. Hmmm. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out that something's got to give, somewhere. The American model is that anything can be fixed if you throw enough money at it. Oops. We've just hit the wall on that one. No more money. Healthcare may need more money, but it also needs a new solution in terms of structuring, priorities and who can give what care and where and to whom. The present model is simply not sustainable in the medium term, let alone the long term. Not to mention the fact that many chronic illnesses have their origins in our CO2 polluted environment or exposure to other toxins in the air we breathe or the water we drink - all of which is getting worse.

McGuinty, Hudak and Company, what exactly is your strategy for ensuring the medium and long term healthcare needs for Ontarians, and please don't tell me you are going to throw money at the problem? We all know that there IS no money because you are not going to raise taxes or cut services.

Power generation and the environment

In 2007, CTV News quoted Stephen Harper as saying that Canada "must act" to curb global warming, and John Baird as saying, "We've clearly got to take action. I think Canadians don't want to hear what can't be done but they want to hear what action will be taken by their government and we hear that call."

Yes. Well, that was 2007 and Canadians are still waiting to hear. Meanwhile global warming and other environmental issues are getting worse at an increasing rate and the world's accusation is that Canada is one of the worst offenders. At the same time we need to decide now and start implementing now our green power generation programs so that we are positioned to supply the energy needs that the future expanding economy, with all the new jobs, is going to need when it all starts happening. A lesson from South Africa is that you cannot wait until you need it to start building your new power generators.

McGuinty, Hudak and Company, what exactly is your strategy for new power generation, and please don't tell me energy from coal, oil, gas or nuclear fission?

Taxes

I want good, affordable healthcare, the more so as I grow older. I want good roads to drive on and reliable public transit when I need it; I want good schools for my grandchildren. I want my garbage collected. I want clean drinking water and I want health inspectors to ensure that I can go to a restaurant and enjoy a meal without spending the rest of the night suffering the bi-directional after effects of bad hygiene in the chef's kitchen. The list could go on and on. If I go to hospital I want to know that certain standards of cleanliness and hygiene are the norm and that I will be treated by properly qualified medical staff. To ensure all this and so much more I am more than happy to pay taxes. I would complain if I felt I was not getting a good bang for my tax dollar but, honestly, I cannot say that. On the contrary, I would be quite happy to pay more if I knew it would help address the issues above. I long for the day when some honest politician stands up and says, "Here's my platform. You've got to pay more taxes. Here's why this is a good thing that you should jump at: etc., etc." If nothing else, people would know they're being honest.

Asbestos, Kyoto, the Alberta Tar Sands: the Judgement of History?

There are many good things that Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party have done since coming to power in 2006, and especially since attaining majority government in May of this year, unfettered by the lefty Liberals and the anti-capitalist, proletariat pumping NDP; I know it intuitively but I just cannot think of anything right now. There must have been something.

However, as the future decades roll by I have little doubt that the legacy for which Stephen Harper and this Conservative Government will be most remembered  will be these three things:  Asbestos,  Kyoto, the Alberta Tar Sands.  Further, I do not expect the judgement of history to be kind or to be swayed by the argument that these policies are in the best interests of the economy, especially when it is shown that, short or long term, they are NOT economical, neither for Canada nor globally,  when full-cost accounting is employed and the dollars and cents impact on health-care (especially cancer and cardio-pulmonary disease), drinking water, agricultural land and global warming mitigation is calculated, not to mention the incalculable cost of environmental and associated species loss.

One other thought. How much money does the Harper Government spend each year on promoting Canada's image, trying to counter all the (deserved) negative publicity?  Maybe we should run a competition something like this one sent to me by a friend in Australia (thanks MOM) which attempts to help the town of Asbestos in Quebec.

How to sell Asbestos, Canada | The Gruen Transfer