Opposition critics say the bill, which combines nine bills that died on the Order Paper in the last Parliament, goes overboard for sentencing for minor crimes, will put thousands more into prisons, will toughen penalties for youth, will make it more difficult to get pardons, and will cost the provinces between $2-billion and $13-billion over the next five years.
“They keep playing to their base support. They’re just ideologically locked into this,” said NDP MP Joe Comartin (Windsor-Tecumseh, Ont.), his party’s justice critic. “As soon as you get an intelligent government they’re going to reverse this.”
Mr. Comartin said that Bill C-10, the 152-page omnibus bill, is financially unsustainable and, if passed, will not bode well for the provinces.
“You can go to any one of the states in the U.S. that have tried this, and I don’t think there’s any exception, they’ve all had to reverse course and they’re coming the way we decided to go as a country 30 to 40 years ago,” Mr. Comartin said.
“At some point, it may be a Conservative government, but at least an intelligent one, that looks at the facts and looks at the unsustainability of it, sees that it’s not working and they reverse it. So it may not be a centrist or a left of a centre government that does this. All you have to do is look at Texas and California where you had quite right-wing governments or the state of Michigan, right next door to me, the governor there and the legislature are very much right-of-centre, they’ve been systematically going through and reversing really bad decisions 10, and 20 and 30 years ago because it’s bankrupting their states,” Mr. Comartin said.
Bill C-10’s aim, as Justice Minister Rob Nicholson (Niagara Falls, Ont.) described during debate at second reading, is to: “deter terrorism by supporting victims of terrorism and amending the State Immunity Act,” “target sexual offences against children and serious drug offences, as well as prevent the use of conditional sentences for serious violent and property crimes,” “increase offender accountability, eliminate pardons for serious crimes and strengthen the international transfer of offenders regime,” “better protect Canadians from violent young offenders,” and “better protect vulnerable foreign workers against abuse and exploitation, including through human trafficking.”
He told the House: “We have a duty to stand up for these victims, which we are doing by bringing in this legislation. The objective of our criminal law reform agenda over the past few years has been to build a stronger, safer and better Canada. This comprehensive legislation is another important step in the process to achieve this end.”
Since 1973, crime rates have decreased, according to Statistics Canada’s latest report, released July 21. The report shows that the volume of crimes, as reported by police forces nation-wide, has declined five per cent in 2010, from 2009 levels. There were decreases in the number of homicides, attempted murders, serious assaults and robberies that took place last year as well. There were also increases in some kinds of crime, including the number of sexual assaults, child pornography and drug offences reported, the agency found.
When the bill passed second reading last week in a vote of 159 in favour to 134 opposed, and sent to the House Justice and Human Rights Committee on Sept. 28, Mr. Nicholson said the government has “accomplished a great deal” on the criminal justice file and will continue to do so. “By moving quickly to reintroduce and pass the Safe Streets and Communities Act, we are fulfilling our promise to Canadians by taking action to protect families, stand up for victims and hold criminals accountable,” he said.
Earlier in the week, the government moved a motion to limit debate to two days, citing the fact that all the bills had previously been debated.
NDP House Leader Thomas Mulcair (Outremont, Que.), in response to the motion, said “This is an exceptional situation where, at the beginning of a Parliament, in only the second week, the government is already using the guillotine to stop Parliamentary debate. At other stages of the bill, will the government be using closure, time allocation or other methods to restrain debate, notably in committee?”
Mr. Nicholson responded that there have already been 295 witnesses and 58 committee days and 123 hours of committee time dedicated to the previous bills included in Bill C-10.
Mr. Comartin said last week that from speaking to the Conservative chair, Dave MacKenzie (Oxford, Ont.) and Parliamentary secretary Kerry-Lynne Findlay (Delta-Richmond East, B.C.) he doesn’t have the impression that the Conservatives will derail committee meetings by flexing their majority muscle.
The committee is expecting to hear from Mr. Nicholson and Public Safety Minister Vic Toews (Provencher, Man.) on Oct. 6, along with their officials. Mr. Comartin said he doesn’t expect to see any major amendments to the bill, but that there will be “a partially reasonable review” of it.
If the provinces come to the committee hearings with a severe opposition to the cost of implementing the changes, the government could be forced to make amendments, Mr. Comartin said.
“It’s really crucial to get the cost evidence out both what it’s going to cost federal tax payers as well as provincial taxpayers,” he said, noting that the provinces don’t have the money or resources to put more people in prisons when other types of sentences could suffice. “The provinces can’t keep stuffing people into prisons—at some point the courts will intervene and we’ll start seeing them ordering the release of prisoners because it’s cruel and unusual punishment to keep them there. In the U.S. they’ve got them housed in cafeterias and gyms in the prison. … I think if [the Conservatives] get any kind of I guess meaningful, or informed pressure, from the provinces, that might make them react. They certainly don’t seem to be reacting to any other knowledgeable people who have come forward with all sorts of evidence to show any number of these proposals are impractical and unusable.”
Government reintroduces copyright modernization bill
The government reintroduced amendments to the Copyright Act in Bill C-11 last week, the third bill in the last five years, but opposition MPs say it doesn’t balance creators’ rights with those of users.
One of the major problems, said NDP MP Charlie Angus (Timmins-James Bay, Ont.), his party’s digital issues critic, remains provisions on digital locks.
“The digital lock provisions are creating a two-tier set of rights. Canadians will not be able – are told that they have rights that they had no ability to exercise,” he told The Hill Times last week. “In terms of people doing long distance learning, I mean this is the 21st century education, they have to burn their class notes after 30 days. That’s ridiculous and there’s millions of dollars in artist revenues that are just being erased off the books.”
Mr. Angus said the Conservatives reintroduced the bill word for word as the previous bill before it died on the Order Paper, and did not take any of the previous hearings at the legislative committee into account.
Industry Minister Christian Paradis (Mégantic-L’Érable, Que.) said in a press release that the bill is balanced, modern and flexible while meeting international standards.
“Canadians will soon have modern copyright laws that protect and help create jobs, promote innovation, and attract new investment to Canada,” he said.
Canadian Heritage Minister James Moore (Port Moody-Westwood-Port Coquitlam, B.C.) added: “This bill delivers a common-sense balance between the interests of consumers and the rights of the creative community.”
While lobby group ACTRA said Bill C-11 is “deeply-flawed,” Mr. Paradis’ office sent an email to reporters with a number of favourable comments on the bill.
“Canadian retailers are encouraged that the market-distorting and inefficient blank media levy will not be extended in the form of an ‘iPod tax’ or other similar measure under the proposed changes. Indeed, retailers believe the levy should be repealed altogether,” said Anne Kothawala, senior vice-president, public affairs of the Retail Council of Canada.
Origin
Source: Hill Times
No comments:
Post a Comment