The Ottawa Citizen November 1, 2011 7:06 PM
Quebec's justice minister has slammed the federal government's crime bill, saying it flies in the face of accepted wisdom on rehabilitation.
OTTAWA — Canada’s two largest provinces appear headed for a major showdown with the Harper Conservatives over the cost and content of new federal crime legislation.
If the federal Conservatives want to pass legislation they will have to pay for it, said Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty Tuesday.
“It’s easy for the federal government to pass new laws dealing with crime,” said McGuinty “but if there are new costs associated with those laws that have to be borne by the taxpayers of Ontario, I expect the feds will pick up that tab.
McGuinty told The Citizen he wouldn’t be doing his job if his government footed the bill for the multimillion-dollar download the crime bill is expected to create.
“What is the expectation on the part of Ontario taxpayers?” he said. “That expectation is this: I say to the feds — I demand of the feds — if, for example, you want us to build new prisons in Ontario and staff those prisons with highly trained personnel, that’s an additional cost to us and it is incumbent upon you, as the creator of those costs, to come up with the money.”
Crime rates in Ontario and Quebec are among the lowest in Canada.
McGuinty’s comments came hours after an often emotional testimony to the House of Commons Justice and Human Rights Committee by Quebec Justice Minister Jean Marc Fournier who angrily criticized proposals included in Bill C-10 that call for increased incarceration of young people, and he accused the government of using stories about high-profile cases to justify re-writing the law.
The Conservatives have promised to have the Safe Streets and Communities legislation and written into law within 100 days of the start of the current session of parliament.
“Quebec will not pay,” said Fournier, who urged the federal government to “take a time out and consider the best way to protect society” by taking a more collaborative approach with the provinces that will bear the financial brunt.
“We will not pay for it because it is not our responsibility to create more costs for taxpayers,” he said. “It is a short term solution — bringing back people to court again and again, to prison again and again. This is not for us.”
The federal government is deliberately ignoring 40 years of experience, studies and statistics, claimed Fournier.
“We have 40 years of experience, studies and statistics,” he told the committee. “You can have it all. I encourage you all to read them. Changing course after 40 years of involvement of specialist individuals who want to fight against crime is a choice. That is not our choice, so we will not pay for that choice.”
Quebec is an international model for how it deals with young offenders, said Fournier, and in the long-term, locking young people in jails instead of focusing on rehabilitation and re-integration into society will make the streets of Canada less safe.
“By definition,” added Fournier, “there comes a time where every criminal leaves prison and returns back to society. Incarceration is only a temporary and superficial solution and is actually a solution that is soft on crime.”
The legislation contains new mandatory minimum sentences for drug offences — including marijuana — and although mandatory minimums don’t apply automatically to young offenders, there are tougher measures planned against young people accused of certain crime, including incarceration before trial and publicly naming young offenders which is now the exception rather than the law.
Crown prosecutors across Canada have already said that mandatory minimums will mean more trials by defendants who have nothing to lose and those trials will add a massive financial strain to the judicial system.
Although the federal government enacts crime legislation, it is largely the responsibility of the provinces to enforce it and house defendants sentenced to serve time — or be incarcerated before a trial — in provincial jails.
Neither McGuinty nor Fournier mentioned court challenges but University of Toronto constitutional expert Peter Russell says that is one option.
“There’s lots of constitutional justification for provinces balking at putting money into services to follow federal legislation,” he said. “But the normal way these things work themselves out is through negotiation and work out protocols but it takes a while. If that doesn’t work it’s possible to go to court.”
More likely, added Russell, provinces objecting to the cost or content of the legislation will ignore certain aspects of it — trafficking or possession of small amounts of marijuana, for example.
“They will say to police who are out looking, ‘If you get a call give it a low priority’,” he said. “I don’t think they would actually say, ‘We’re not going to enforce the law.’ They would say to the provincial police, ‘Give people who grow pot a low priority’. They can certainly do that. You just don’t put the resources into it. It’s a matter of discretion.”
Politically, Canada is headed into a situation where the provinces are shaping up as the official opposition, added Russell.
“They are taking over that role,” he said, “and have a constitutional right to do so.”
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/O...ill+justice+committee+told/5638099/story.html
Quebec's justice minister has slammed the federal government's crime bill, saying it flies in the face of accepted wisdom on rehabilitation.
OTTAWA — Canada’s two largest provinces appear headed for a major showdown with the Harper Conservatives over the cost and content of new federal crime legislation.
If the federal Conservatives want to pass legislation they will have to pay for it, said Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty Tuesday.
“It’s easy for the federal government to pass new laws dealing with crime,” said McGuinty “but if there are new costs associated with those laws that have to be borne by the taxpayers of Ontario, I expect the feds will pick up that tab.
McGuinty told The Citizen he wouldn’t be doing his job if his government footed the bill for the multimillion-dollar download the crime bill is expected to create.
“What is the expectation on the part of Ontario taxpayers?” he said. “That expectation is this: I say to the feds — I demand of the feds — if, for example, you want us to build new prisons in Ontario and staff those prisons with highly trained personnel, that’s an additional cost to us and it is incumbent upon you, as the creator of those costs, to come up with the money.”
Crime rates in Ontario and Quebec are among the lowest in Canada.
McGuinty’s comments came hours after an often emotional testimony to the House of Commons Justice and Human Rights Committee by Quebec Justice Minister Jean Marc Fournier who angrily criticized proposals included in Bill C-10 that call for increased incarceration of young people, and he accused the government of using stories about high-profile cases to justify re-writing the law.
The Conservatives have promised to have the Safe Streets and Communities legislation and written into law within 100 days of the start of the current session of parliament.
“Quebec will not pay,” said Fournier, who urged the federal government to “take a time out and consider the best way to protect society” by taking a more collaborative approach with the provinces that will bear the financial brunt.
“We will not pay for it because it is not our responsibility to create more costs for taxpayers,” he said. “It is a short term solution — bringing back people to court again and again, to prison again and again. This is not for us.”
The federal government is deliberately ignoring 40 years of experience, studies and statistics, claimed Fournier.
“We have 40 years of experience, studies and statistics,” he told the committee. “You can have it all. I encourage you all to read them. Changing course after 40 years of involvement of specialist individuals who want to fight against crime is a choice. That is not our choice, so we will not pay for that choice.”
Quebec is an international model for how it deals with young offenders, said Fournier, and in the long-term, locking young people in jails instead of focusing on rehabilitation and re-integration into society will make the streets of Canada less safe.
“By definition,” added Fournier, “there comes a time where every criminal leaves prison and returns back to society. Incarceration is only a temporary and superficial solution and is actually a solution that is soft on crime.”
The legislation contains new mandatory minimum sentences for drug offences — including marijuana — and although mandatory minimums don’t apply automatically to young offenders, there are tougher measures planned against young people accused of certain crime, including incarceration before trial and publicly naming young offenders which is now the exception rather than the law.
Crown prosecutors across Canada have already said that mandatory minimums will mean more trials by defendants who have nothing to lose and those trials will add a massive financial strain to the judicial system.
Although the federal government enacts crime legislation, it is largely the responsibility of the provinces to enforce it and house defendants sentenced to serve time — or be incarcerated before a trial — in provincial jails.
Neither McGuinty nor Fournier mentioned court challenges but University of Toronto constitutional expert Peter Russell says that is one option.
“There’s lots of constitutional justification for provinces balking at putting money into services to follow federal legislation,” he said. “But the normal way these things work themselves out is through negotiation and work out protocols but it takes a while. If that doesn’t work it’s possible to go to court.”
More likely, added Russell, provinces objecting to the cost or content of the legislation will ignore certain aspects of it — trafficking or possession of small amounts of marijuana, for example.
“They will say to police who are out looking, ‘If you get a call give it a low priority’,” he said. “I don’t think they would actually say, ‘We’re not going to enforce the law.’ They would say to the provincial police, ‘Give people who grow pot a low priority’. They can certainly do that. You just don’t put the resources into it. It’s a matter of discretion.”
Politically, Canada is headed into a situation where the provinces are shaping up as the official opposition, added Russell.
“They are taking over that role,” he said, “and have a constitutional right to do so.”
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/O...ill+justice+committee+told/5638099/story.html
