Should Ottawa reimburse the provinces for the cost of its crime legislation?


Filed under:

Should Ottawa reimburse the provinces for the cost of its crime legislation?

  1. Wow!

  2. Duh !!

  3. Kids for cash:  prison


    Harper needs new customers 4 his Super Prisons of
    Profit.  Guess who?  YO KIDS‼


    The “Kids for cash” scandal unfolded in 2008 over
    judicial kickbacks at the Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas in Wilkes-Barre,


    Two judges, President Judge Mark Ciavarella and Senior Judge
    Michael Conahan, were accused of accepting money from the co-owner and builder
    of two private, for-profit juvenile facilities, in return for contracting with
    the facilities and imposing harsh sentences on juvenile offenders in order to
    ensure that the detention centers would be utilized.



  4. ♥♥♥  Working hard since
    Feb. 2010 to get the word out to Canada about our Crime Minister / Prime
    Spender Stealin’ Harper.  ♥♥♥  Google discussion group of Canadians:  (CRUSH) Canadians Rallying to Unseat Steve
    Harper  ♥♥♥  Also they run a website called:  unseatHarper dot ca  ♥  We
    talk, share newstories and help each other understand the lies told to us by
    Harper, his unelected backroom goons, the billionaire-owned mass-media, and fake
    polls.  ♥♥♥  Steve HarperCon:  Government of One ♥♥♥

    • Rubbish and trash

      • You are referring to Harpo and Company, right?

        • No, you.

      • No. Lumley

    • your an idiot

      • This is the same idiot from the Glope and Smail!!

  5. Not enough attention paid to the experts who oppose this bill, including members of our judicial system, social services and the police.   The majority of Canadians do not think this bill is valid yet Harper continues to push it through with little debate.  Shame!

    • Where did you get this information the majority of canadians hate this bill tell it like it is liberals hate this bill ,law abiding people dont hate this bill, and who would your experts be.

      • The same experts who think every gun should be confiscated.  Members of the judicial system, which includes our MINORITY PREMIER McGUILTY who is a LAWYER, who are in a conflict of interest.

  6. Given all of the Tory arguments that it doesn’t matter that their crime legislation flies in the face of pretty much all the evidence on the best ways to reduce crime, or that it has been widely panned by pretty much anyone who knows anything about rational crime policy that works – because their Bill is a response to the demands of the citizenry to enact these kind of policies, because of how people feel about crime, it’s interesting that this poll currently has over 70% of respondents saying that they oppose the Tories’ bill.

    What does it do to the Tory argument that they’re ignoring all of the experts in favour of listening to the people, if it can be shown that the majority of the people oppose their policies too???

    • It does nothing. Open, voluntary, online polls aren’t worth the paper they’re printed on.

      • I actually meant “if it can be shown that the majority of the people oppose their policies”, not that this poll does that.

        So, if a scientific poll DID show that the majority of the people oppose the Tory crime bill, I’d say that would pretty much DESTROY the argument that the Tory crime bill ignores the experts in favour of listening to the people.

        That said, I think that would end up doing nothing, since I don’t think the Tories would actually care if, in addition to every expert disagreeing with their policies, the majority of citizens disagreed with their policies as well.  I’d bet they’d still wager that they can win elections running on an “everybody but us loves criminals and wants to make you a victim” platform, and sadly, they might be right.

        What really scares me is that the Tories’ counter-productive policies may actually lead to an increase in crime, which would likely just lead the Tories to double down on their counter-productive policies.  It wouldn’t surprise me at all if the Tories, upon discovering that their policies made things worse, decided to do EVEN MORE of the things that just made things worse.

        • There is also a position that the statistics are biased because crime is largely done by youngish cohorts, so crime was higher when the baby boomers were younger. Now they are older and moving out of the crime-causing ages; the demographic of younger crime doers is much, much  smaller, but the rate  for each cohort is the same if not larger for the current crop. Hence the apparent change in the statistics.  Same in States.

           Where I disagree with the Tories is in the continuing criminalization of pot smokers. There is too much of a fundamentalist influence here.  I also believe junior offenders need to be given a chance to correct their ways, but on the other hand, I have heard of 12-year-olds in the juvie facilities that would sooner cut your throat than blink an eye.

           Professional criminologists do studies; cops do the work, judges need bucking up.  But I am all in favour of getting violent crimes off the street, including wife abusers put away with meaningful protection of the female spouses, not like it has been.  We also need to shake up the junior judiciary who are mainly made up of ex-defence lawyers and far tool lenient in my opinion.


          • Valid points all, but keep in mind that it’s not just the criminologists and the cops and the judges who have raised concerns about the Tories’ crime bill, but Crown prosecutors too!

            That said, there’s surely all kinds of stuff in the Tories’ crime bill that is no doubt worth doing, and would get nearly universal support, the problem is that the Tories spent years and years delaying their own crime bill (so that they could keep talking about crime on the campaign trail, imho) and now they’ve just bundled it all up together, good and bad, and want to pass it all together right away with no more debate. Frankly, they’re actually setting themselves up for failure, and I can’t fathom why they’re doing so.

          • A minority parliament spent years delaying the crime bill. I agree some of it should be excised but it it gonna happen.

            Main problem with government now is too much PCO and too much PMO.

          • Sure. However, the Tories killed the crime bill THREE TIMES when they prorogued Parliament.

            ETA: Delaying the moment that bad legislation becomes bad law is what Parliament is supposed to do.

          • Of course they are made up of ex-defence lawyers. When law students graduate they don’t walk into crown attorney jobs or are handed a judgeship. They have to prove that they are capable and while defence lawyers can and do suggest sentences for their clients that are found quilty, it is the judge that has the final say.

      • Yeah, and usually they’re voted in by people who can read.

    • If you can ‘come up with the best ways to reduce crime’ I’d love to hear it. Sorry all bleeding heart lieberals, Harper’s plan will help KEEP criminals OFF the streets and that is to my mind far and above “rehabilitating ” them, which does not appear to work to well.

      • I’m sorry if it makes me a “bleeding heart” to think that a guy who shares a joint of pot that he grew himself with his roommate doesn’t deserve a mandatory nine months in jail, but for every improvement to the justice system in the Tories’ omnibus bill there is at least one piece of absolutely ludicrous and counter-productive policy.

        If you really think that this bill is going to get the crime rate dropping faster then you’re entitled to that opinion, but you’re in for a disappointment. If harsher sentences reduced crime, then places with harsher sentences would have lower crime rates, which is demonstrably not the case. Now, if you approve of harsher sentences because you want criminals to be punished more, then fine. Fair enough. But it ain’t gonna reduce crime.


          • He doesn’t need to be smoking “outside of a school” to be arrested. That’s just not true.

            All the person with six plants has to do is share a single joint from one of his six plants with a friend, anywhere, and BOOM, he’s a “trafficker” and can get a mandatory six months in jail.

            You don’t actually have to grow six plants though.

            If the suspect grew his pot in an apartment that he shares with a roommate, then a SINGLE plant is enough to make him a trafficker if he shares a joint with his roommate, because in that scenario the grower has “used real property that belongs to a third party in committing the offence”. One plant, made in to one joint which you pass to your roommate, and you’re eligible for a nine month minimum sentence.

            What’s worse, the way the trafficking laws are currently written, even if your friend doesn’t take a puff, just having offered it to him is technically “trafficking”, so you don’t technically have to even share your joint with anyone to be eligible for a mandatory nine month sentence, all you have to do is offer to share it.

  7. The crime bill is ridiculous but I guess you have to create more criminals to fill all the new spaces in the “super-prisons”

    • Don’t worry lk59, they are already here and more are doing their best to join them.

      I guess if the prisons aren’t big enough, we could send some criminals to do their “home sentence” to stay with the people who oppose this bill.  That would assist the system – and may have an effect on their opinion.

  8. I made a mistake – I meant to vote for “I don’t support the legislation but the Harper govt should pay back the provinces since this is there pet project of “wasting taxpayers’ $$$”

    • I will go along with this as long as the Province signs an agreement that the money will go ONLY to the stated legislation and not to GENERAL REVENUES.

  9. There is only one taxpayer !
    No taxpayer should pay for this “Stupid” Omnibus Bill .
    Let the money come from the Consevative party of Canada.
    I want my tax dollars spent on Health Care & Education for a civil society.

  10. Long walk, short bridge

    • It’s “short pier”. A short bridge has another end, so the walker would continue down the road on the other side…

  11. We need more jails and pre schools because parents do not want to be responsible for taking care of their kids today.  If we don’t have more jails soon parents are going to run out of daycare centers.  The police haven’t got time to go after the real criminals because the public wants them as babysitters

    • The prison is an extension of the education system, don’t you know!!

  12. The provinces, some of them anyway, can’t afford it.  However by keeping the miscreants out of jail, it only adds up to other costs, social costs like dealing with drugs, supporting those affected by crime (hospitalized or handicapped by criminals), etc, etc.  Like the Fram commercial: “Pay me now or pay me later”.

    • By putting too much focus on punishment and not enough on prevention / rehabilitation, you end up with a “Pay me now AND pay me later” state.

  13. 70% oppose the bill. WOW.

    I wonder if this trend extends to people who don’t subscribe to Macleans’ email?

    If so, some sort of action needs to be taken against this. We shouldn’t have to wait four years to repeal something as significant as c-10. Think of the financial waste. Definitely not worth it.

  14. Take a look at Omar Kadr – That shows the sick mentality of this governmen and CSISt.  In certain instances they would put our children in prison for life.

    • He is not a child but was a child murderer.

  15. The current majority government represents 40% of the population.  Assuming this poll is representative and identifies 28% of the population who support the crime bill, then I contend that the question should be put to a national referendum, rather than being rammed through by a party that has taken a mis-step to advance a piece of legislation that is not only unpopular (72% oppose), but also misguided and inappropriate.  Having lived in Texas for two years, I know that a draconian police state is not in our best interests.

    • a.  This poll has no value. It is the sweepings of the social media.  Yopu can tell by the twitter-length comments.
      b. People are always saying that the Cons only got 40% of the popular vote. The point is they got more than any other party.  Government in Canada is not a popularity contest but the power goes to those with the most seats, in this case a majority of seats.  In other words,more people want the conservative government than any other. Get used to the facts as to how this country has operated since 1867 and stop whining.
      c. I also have been in Texas. Just goes to show you what happens when you make a  bunch of ignorant cowpunchers rich with oil. You just gotta strap ur shootin’ arn on there.   But then it had some pretty smart astronauts and doctors as well.  

      • One difference however, in this particular case, but there was a study done that not only asked who people would prefer, but who they’d least prefer. In that study, the CPC party was the least preferred of a majority of the populace.

        So it’s not just that they only got 40% of the vote, but that a majority of people wanted anybody BUT them.  So really, Canadians got the government they least wanted due to FPTP system and not being sure of what they wanted most. I’m sorry, but that’s not a good thing no matter which party it happens to.

    • I will go along with that as long as the referendum also includes one regarding SAME SEX MARRIAGE which if you will remember was rammed through by a party that took a misstep to advance a piece of legislation that is not only unpopular but also misguided and inappropriate.  If you are going this far, might as well put in the Capital Punishment Issue.

      • Same sex marriage being illegal is unconstitutional. Denying somebody a service because of their sexual orientation is discrimination. Get it in your head. Canada is a modern progressive country, not some crazy theocracy.

  16. The rest of Canada vote for these conservative $%&?, so now live with it.

  17. Welcome to Dear Leader harpo’s brand of “democracy”….    !

  18. I wonder if the 68% opposing the crime bill bothered to vote.

    • I expect so, but there were more than two choices of who to vote for on the ballot.

  19. Locking people up is mostly a waste of the taxpayers’ money. I guess the incarceration industry has got Harper’s ear. His far-right fundamentalist antediluvian constituency, to which he always plays to the exclusion of the rest of us, loves the idea of locking people up.

  20. None of the above!
    Locking people up does not deter crime & locking them up without proper rehabilitation programs for longer times makes us less safe when they finish their time.
    It does not make social or economic sense .
    We need to “Get Smart on Crime”.

  21. I think everyone who voted Conservative should reimburse the provinces.  You people are always whining about how you don’t want to have to pay taxes for this, that, and the other thing.  Well, you voted for this, you pay for it.  I sure as heck am not. 

    • You may not wanna, but you’re gonna.

  22. Hah hah–good one!

  23. If you were a parent or sibling of one of Paul Bernardo’s victims, or any of the other serial killers
    you might feel quite differently about this stronger crime bill. 

    • If you were unable to see beyond your own sad experience, yes, you might.  But good national policies are made for the many, not the few, and they’re born of reason, rather than emotion.  Reason tempered by compassion would be ideal.  That is wisdom.

    • I think we do a pretty good job of keeping our serial killers behind bars (with the exception of Karla, who wisely exited the country soon after her release). How does this bill prevent serial killers from killing, or increase their punishment? It largely gets tougher on more minor offences.

    • It doesn’t strengthen their sentences at all.  Nice try though.

      In fact, judges tend to give penalties larger than the minimums listed, other than exceptional cases. So defense attorneys wouldn’t even tend to argue for anything as low as the current minimums listed.. again, other than cases that were exceptional in some manner.

      Now though?  They’re *always* going to argue for the minimum sentence. And since written law trumps precedent, they may even get them. If anything this means that those exceptional cases.. the ones where people really don’t deserve the full minimum, are the only ones that are going to see longer sentences. The harder criminals? They’re more likely to see even less.

      The problem is that “tough on criminals” does not equal “tough on crime”

    • Why?  Bernardo’s in jail for life under the old regime.  How would this bill change a thing for the parents of his victims?   Well, OK, if Leslie Mahaffy had sold a bit of pot in her day and they’d arrested her and given her a mandatory two years in the slammer, she’d have been safe behind bars and Bernardo would never have found her.  I guess I see where you’re coming from. 

  24. reply to Fortunate:

    If you were unable to see beyond your own sad experience, yes, you might.  But good national policies are made for the many, not the few, and they’re born of reason, rather than emotion.  Reason tempered by compassion would be ideal.  That is wisdom.

    • THAT’S IS WHY WE HAVE ELECTIONS!!  In case you missed it, they are the MAJORITY in Parliament!!

  25. I’m sure that all those who oppose the crime bill would challenge the justice system and the way it is operated if: a young teenager stole their car and it was the 350th time the “child” was let out on bail. One of the questions we in Winnipeg have, is “Why the Hell are these criminals still receiving bail after they have committed this many crimes (close to 400 in one case).  The only way we can stop habitual criminals is to keep then incarcerated. My family and yours are safe when this crap is behind bars.  A few “children” even cut off their ankle bracelets – which was supposed to be the “new great deterrent” to keep them from commiting more crimes.

    What would your opinion be if it was your father/uncle that was killed in a t-bone accident when this youth (the 400 car thief) was running from the police with his 375th stolen car (a Hummer)?  Would you still be against this crime bill? 

    I am betting these bleeding hearts who oppose the crime bill do not live in a high crime area and feel their neighbourhood is such a safe place they don’t have to worry about criminals.  Come on over to Winnipeg and place a bet on the number of murders we are going to have this year.  We are already establishing a new record – we just are waiting to see how high it will go. Don’t forget to park your car downtown – the boys might like to take it for a ride.

    Lock up the repeat offenders – they are beyond hope (and are a threat to the public’s safety – a couple of our “future hopefuls” drove down a jogging path playing dodge-em with joggers in a stolen car- sending a few  to the hospital ) and while they are cooling off their heels, start directing money to programs to keep younger children on the right side of the law.

    In my opinion – and many others here in Winnipeg – if we don’t have enough money to “retrain” them, at least keep them of off the streets until we do. Our population is increasing, why shouldn’t our jails keep up by becoming larger to hold the larger number of criminals and repeat offenders showing up.

    And quit your whining you bleeding hearts – you’d change your tune if these things happened to you.

    • Our current laws aren’t perfect, but some of the problems (the guy you describe who stole all those cars, if he’s real, getting bail) are due not to the laws but to incompetent judges. Like any profession you get your good and your bad; it;s just harder to get rid of the bad in some professions.

      I’m not opposed to every change the CPC is proposing; some are ones I like. I’m opposed to the US-style omnibus bill that forces an all-or-nothing approach, and the lack of debate. Split the bill up into manageable chunks that can be properlty reviewed and – where necessary – amended.

      The approach the CPC is taking comes across as hurried and furtive, like they are trying to slip one by us. If the proposals are so good, you’d think they would want debate and scrutiny so they can boast what a good job they are doing.

      • They have had the SAME BILLS FOR THE LAST 5 YEARS, YOU IDIOT!!

        • You mean the ones they kept saying they were going to pass, then kept proroguing so they’d have something for their next campaign? The ones they kept pretending the opposition was delaying? Those bills?

          I haven’t looked closely to see if they have added in anything new or changed aspects of the previous ones they have lumped in together, so I can’t say for sure that it’s all the same stuff. You seem pretty sure, though.

          Besides, debate helps identify flaws that can be dealt with before things end up in front of judges. It also serves to make the public more aware of the contents; if the CPC is so proud of these, you’d think they’d want them talked about.

          Finally, the fact we’ve seen this particular bill in other forms before doesn’t negate my complaint about omnibus bills. It’s not the first time they have used this tactic; they did it a couple of times while in minority, burying things the opposition didn’t like in with things they wanted so they’d have to pass or kill everything. It’s a cheap and sleazy way of doing politics.

  26. i disagree with more prisons, they have done nothing but to teach the young how to do it better, its really schools by hardcore prisonners

  27. Harper gets his majority then disregards all other aspects of a democracy. Clearly, the PEOPLE DO NOT WANT this crime bill! The experts don’t want it, the other parties don’t want it, and the citizens of Canada do not want it. Harper, get out! You’ve abused your position and failed as a respectable leader. Take polls such as this as the proof

    • NO, You can respect democray and stop WHINING about the MAJORITY CONSERVATIVE GOVERNMENT that was voted in by a MAJORITY.  You must be a LAWYER who would really respect a poll like this when they have 70% of people reading the article as representative of 34,000,0000!!

      • … the MAJORITY CONSERVATIVE GOVERNMENT that was voted in by a MAJORITY.

        The Tories are certainly a majority government, and they’re entitled to act accordingly, however, they most certainly were not “voted in by a majority”.

        The Tories received 39.62% of the vote in the 2011 election.

        39.62% is clearly not a majority. 

Sign in to comment.