Pubdate: Sat, 17 Mar 2012
Source: Globe and Mail (Canada)
Copyright: 2012 The Globe and Mail Company
Contact:  http://www.theglobeandmail.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/168
Author: Tony Wilson

WHY CRIME BILL SHOULD BE CONCERN FOR BUSINESS

Canadians can point to many decisions made by politicians that have
used taxpayers' money with little or no resulting benefit.

B.C.'s fast ferries debacle of the 1990s cost provincial taxpayers
more than $400-million. Montreal's Mirabel Airport was dubbed "one of
the great white elephants of aeronautics history" by The New York Times.

Bill C-10, dubbed the Safe Streets and Communities Act, which the
federal government passed on Monday, could potentially waste billions
of Canadian taxpayer dollars. At a time when promised corporate tax
reductions have been shelved in B.C., and with Ontario actively
considering cancellation of its own planned corporate tax cut,
businesses big and small, together with their associations and
representatives, should be very concerned.

In fairness, some of Bill C-10's provisions may be long overdue and
supportable, such as getting tougher with sexual predators and those
who would exploit children, and increasing certain sentences for
organized drug crime.

But other provisions will come at a huge cost, and they will require
program spending cuts or tax increases to fund new initiatives that
many policing, justice and corrections professionals believe are
inefficient and ineffective ways to deter and punish criminal behaviour.

Bill C-10 calls for mandatory minimum sentences for certain offences,
necessitating the construction and staffing of new prisons to house
new inmates. For example, the bill calls for a mandatory minimum
sentence of nine months for anyone found growing six or more marijuana
plants in a rented premises, and could impose the same sentence for
someone caught simply sharing a joint, which might be considered
trafficking, even if no money was paid.

Four former attorney generals of British Columbia have gone on the
record stating that the criminalization of marijuana is bad policy.
Former B.C. Liberal attorney general Geoff Plant stated to this
newspaper: "I have always had a problem with the idea that the state
should criminalize an act which is essentially no more complex than
putting a couple of seeds in your back yard, waiting a while and then,
when something grows, you put it in your pocket, you chew it or you
smoke it."

The criminalization of marijuana is an example of the law of
unintended consequences: "What has happened," Mr. Plant said, "is that
=C2=85 the prohibition of cannabis is not just an ineffective policy, but

is having the effect of increasing certain harms, as organized crime
increasingly relies on the cannabis trade to support its activities,
to make huge profits and to fight with each other with guns
increasingly in public over their market share."

Despite this, Bill C-10 will require a mandatory prison sentence of
nine months for six or more pot plants that could theoretically be
grown inside your son or daughter's student dorm room. The minimum
penalty for sexually touching a person under 16 is between 14 and 45
days, depending on whether the accused is charged summarily or by way
of indictment. Does this sound like a federal government that has its
priorities straight?

Even British billionaire businessman Sir Richard Branson has waded
into the Bill C-10 fray: "It just means that politicians are going to
be punishing young people and putting young people in prison ... Why
punish the young? The way I'd like to talk to a politician, 'if it was
your son =C2=85 would you recommend prison?' And none of them would," he
said. "Horrendous things happen in prison."

A recent study by the Centre for Policy Alternatives, Bill C-10: The
Truth About Consequences, was very critical of the cost of additional
incarceration for certain lesser offences where it was not deemed
necessary or beneficial. "Jail time will increase through the
restrictions on conditional sentences and the additional mandatory
minimum sentences. This punitive approach has been widely used - and
subsequently rejected - in both the United States and Great Britain
over the last 35 years," the study said.

In quoting Tracy Velazquez, executive director of the Washington-based
Justice Policy Institute, it reads: "Republican governors and state
legislators in such states of Texas, South Carolina, and Ohio are
repealing mandatory minimum sentences, increasing opportunities for
effective community supervision, and funding drug treatment because
they know it will improve public safety and reduce taxpayer costs. If
passed, C-10 will take Canadian justice policies 180 degrees in the
wrong direction, and Canadian citizens will bear the costs."

What does it cost to incarcerate someone? A lot. The operating cost is
extremely expensive, "costing anywhere from $65,000 to $130,000 a year
to house a single inmate," the study points out. "These are just the
operating costs - rising inmate populations mean increased capital
expenditures as well."

The federal government has not indicated how much Bill C-10 will cost,
and provincial governments are concerned because the expense of these
new laws would be "offloaded" to them (the provinces are
constitutionally responsible for the administration of justice).

At a time when public service unions such as B.C.'s teachers are
striking for more money, and as public health expenditures continue to
rise across the country, it's the provinces that will have to cut
spending or raise taxes as a result of the billions of extra dollars
required to fund Bill C-10 amendments.

The Ontario government has determined Bill C-10 will increase the
caseload for police and for probation and parole officers. It could
add up to 1,500 additional inmates to provincial prisons by 2016, and
require the construction of a new 1,000-bed prison at a cost of more
than $900 million. More police officers will be conducting
investigations and in court giving evidence instead of patrolling
streets. Correctional Services Minister Madeleine Meilleur has stated:
"Our government believes in community safety and crime prevention but
it is unacceptable that Ontarians are expected to bear the cost of
federal anti-crime initiatives. If they talk tough on crime, they
should be willing to pay for the cost."

Quebec Minister of Justice Jean-Marc Fournier has said the province
will not pay for new prisons and other costs required to enforce Bill
C-10. Mr. Fournier has said he believes enforcing the bill would cost
Quebec an additional $500 million to $600 million, and an additional
$75 million to $100 million a year.

In Manitoba, the John Howard Society has calculated that Bill C-10
will cost that province an additional $60 million a year in operating
expenses, plus $30 million in capital expenses.

But perhaps the most revealing comment comes from Mr.
Plant.

"Mandatory minimum sentences make for a great 'tough on crime' message
but in fact they don't work," he said. "They encourage plea bargains
to lesser offences, and make for much longer trials in other cases.
Everyone in the justice system knows this, but unfortunately for
taxpayers, the Conservatives think they know better. My prediction is
that Bill C-10 will become for the Conservatives what the gun registry
law was for the federal Liberals. Massive cost, without any benefit.

"They've made it such a key part of their agenda that its failure will
count for much more than they even imagine. Bill C-10 will just
download costs on the provinces without any corresponding improvement
in public safety. All cost, no benefit."

Add to this an underfunded legal aid system, an underfunded justice
system - often without enough judges to deal with the cases currently
before them - and you have a recipe for a very expensive train wreck.

The business community should be very concerned when it comes to how
its tax dollars are spent.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Matt