Pubdate: Thu, 22 Sep 2011
Source: Hamilton Spectator (CN ON)
Copyright: 2011 The Hamilton Spectator
Contact:  http://www.thespec.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/181
Author: Howard Elliott

CRIME BILL: THE GOOD, THE BAD AND THE UGLY

The federal government's omnibus crime bill -- dubbed the Safe Streets
and Communities Act -- does a lot of things right, but a few things
wrong, and in a worrisome way.

The politics of the thing are obvious. Stephen Harper pledged
tough-on-crime measures, in part as an appeal to his bedrock
conservative supporters. Yes, crime rates are at their lowest since
1973, and there are undoubtedly more serious problems facing Canadians
than crime -- the global financial crisis and its impact on Canada
chief among them. But there are no surprises here. Harper tried to get
much of this stuff through when he led a minority government, and
failed. He said all along he'd pursue the agenda if given a majority,
and Canadians gave him one. We may disagree with his strategic vision
on the matter and timing, but you can't credibly argue he doesn't have
a mandate to enact these measures.

Many of them will be supported by average Canadians. For example, who
wouldn't support a bill to deny pardons for sexual predators? The
omnibus bill introduced this week will also end the overuse of house
arrest for violent crimes. Another new law will require the Crown to
consider asking for adult sentences for young offenders convicted of
the most serious offences, another measure most reasonable people
won't have a problem with. Mandatory minimum sentences will be imposed
for a range of sexual offences where a child under 16 is involved.
Courts will have the authority to detain and control violent young
offenders, keeping them off the streets and putting public safety
first. Immigration officials will be authorized to deny work permits
to vulnerable foreign nationals if it is determined they are at risk
of abuses, such as sexual exploitation. All this makes sense.

But the act goes off the rails in some key places. Its costing is
essentially absent, which makes no sense. But Corrections Canada has
warned the cost of running the system with these new laws will
increase from $1.6 billion in 2006, when Harper came to power, to $3
billion. How will the government pay for this and what happens to
other priorities? What will happen to provincial budgets, since
justice administration is a provincial matter? Some of the specifics,
too, are out of whack. Yes, it makes sense to have mandatory prison
minimums for serious drug crimes, but this law will define growing six
marijuana plants as a serious crime, meaning kids who make that
relatively minor mistake will be jailed for six months minimum. And
yes, it makes sense to deny house arrest to perpetrators of serious
crimes, but the new law tells us even car theft and break-and-enter,
crimes largely committed by kids, will necessarily result in hard time.

There is some overdue common sense being applied in much of the Safe
Communities Act. But there are also some serious problems in areas
where ideology has been allowed to trump common sense. The
Conservatives need to revisit these questions and apply common sense
without the revenge factor. And they need to come clean about what
these measures will actually cost, and explain how they will be paid
for, and what other priorities will suffer as a result.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Richard R Smith Jr.