As soon as Parliament resumed this September the Harper government introduced Bill C-10, a mega crime bill that combines nine bills they have introduced since taking power in 2005 but not gotten passed. The scope of the deftly dubbed Safer Streets and Communities Act is far ranging. It includes increasing mandatory minimum sentences, changes to the Youth Criminal Justice Act, changes to international transfer of Canadian prisoners decision making policy, changes to the to use of conditional sentences like house arrest, restrictions on pardons and new laws to protect children from sexual predators. All this in the context of Statistics Canada’s report that in 2010 Canada’s crime rate and crime severity index hit lows not seen since 1973 and 1998 respectively. The Conservatives promised in the May election to pass their crime bills within 100 days of taking power and the resulting rush to pass Bill C-10 to meet that deadline is adding to the concern about its scope and outcomes.

Bill C-10 has hit the news recently as first Quebec and then Ontario and Newfoundland have publicly raised objection to the high cost that will be borne by the provinces and territories for the increased prison time for both adults and youth that will flow from the new provisions. Even staunch Harper supporters like the BC Liberal government are admitting to wondering what the price tag might be for the provinces although Premier Christy Clark remains supportive of the tough on crime approach.

The debate over the cost of the Conservatives’ crime agenda was part of the unmaking of the Harper minority government that led to the contempt of parliament charges and the vote of non-confidence that precipitated the election last spring. Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page’s predictions have been vastly at odds with the government’s projections of the crime bill tab. Page has estimated the federal cost of implementation to be in the neighbourhood of $5 billion versus the government’s figure of $78 million over five years. Mr. Page has also estimated the cost to the provinces to be in the order of $6 to $10 billion over five years.

The Conservatives have been the ones to derail their crime bills more often than the opposition by calling the election in 2008 and proroguing parliament. Despite this fact they continue to accuse the opposition of being the hold up. The truth is that the opposition has previously offered to fast track the passage of bills they agree with. This occurred again in September when the Official Opposition NDP suggested removing the sections such as those dealing with sexual predators so that those laws could be unanimously and quickly passed. No go to that idea from Conservative Justice Minister Rob Nicholson who resolutely keeps repeating that the government received a mandate in the election to pass all the crime legislation and to do it ultra quickly. Thus debate on C-10 was cut short in Parliament in order to send the Bill to the Justice Committee where it is now hearing witness submissions, of no more than five minutes length.

A study of those submissions and the points raised by concerned stakeholder groups is a worthwhile exercise. The Church Council on Justice and Corrections states on its website: “Bill C10 will ensure that more Canadians are sent to prison for longer periods, a strategy that has been repeatedly proven to neither reduce crime nor assist victims. CCJC has long advocated that investing in crime prevention, rehabilitation and victim support is the most effective way to increase public safety and build stronger, healthier communities. We fear that this Bill is a giant step in the wrong direction.”

The Canadian Council for Refugees commented that Bill C-10: “includes amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. These amendments would give immigration officials the power to deny a work permit to applicants overseas, on the basis that they might be exploited in Canada. The Canadian Council for Refugees opposes these amendments. The approach is condescending and moralistic. The amendments empower visa officers to decide which women should be kept out of Canada for their own good. They fail to protect the rights of trafficked persons already here in Canada. The amendments do not address the root problem with the existence in Canada of jobs that humiliate and degrade workers.”

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association noted: “the bill proposes some welcome changes, including requiring the Parole Board of Canada to provide annual statistics relating to record suspensions (which replace pardons for some offences) and empowering victims of terrorism to seek redress for loss and damage resulting from a terrorist act. Other provisions of the bill, however, are quite damaging and have no place in Canadian criminal law. For example, the bill would authorize police to arrest offenders who “appear” to be breaching their release conditions, without having to obtain a warrant. This is a dangerous precedent. Increases in arrest powers should be accompanied by corresponding enhancements in accountability measures. Such measures are sorely lacking in this bill.”

The press release accompanying the Canadian Bar Association’s (CBA) 100 page submission stated: “The CBA’s criticism extends to the omnibus process the government has taken with this legislation. The CBA brief notes that “some of these initiatives have received no Parliamentary committee consideration to date, yet contain fundamental shifts in Canada’s approach to criminal law and the treatment of offenders.”

“The CBA has a longstanding commitment to improving Canada’s criminal justice and correctional system. Most recently at its 2011 Canadian Legal Conference, the CBA publicly urged that Canada adopt:
• a more health-based response to the mentally ill, in place of incarceration;
• policies and laws that recognize the historical, social and economic realities of aboriginal people;
• a judicial “safety valve” to ensure justice in sentencing; and
• a policy of transparency in regard to the cost of any future criminal justice initiatives.”

The Canadian Coalition for the Rights of Children told the Justice Committee: “The youth justice system is different from the adult justice system because persons under age 18 are developing into adults but are not yet mature adults. Just as parents use age-appropriate correction and means of accountability at home, the court system must use age-appropriate means to protect both adults and young people from harm. This is common sense. It is also an obligation that Canada accepted when it ratified the (United Nations) Convention on the Rights of the Child more than twenty years ago. Bill C-10 reduces the age-appropriate nature of Canada’s youth justice system. It violates the provisions in the Convention regarding youth justice. The CCRC and other witnesses made those arguments during review of the previous Bill C-4.” And they added: “Winning the election cannot be interpreted as a mandate to rush changes to the youth justice system. Adult issues, not youth justice, were the focus of election debate.”

BC’s Representative for Children and Youth, Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond presented a full analysis of the effect of Bill C-10 on the Youth Criminal Justice Act. While complimentary of some changes she noted: “In British Columbia a good program of community supervision and intervention with a youth offender costs about $20,000 per year, compared with about $215,000 for a year in custody. Custody cost avoidance makes resources available for community programming, which is demonstrably more effective for the large majority of offenders.”

Individual victims of crime including former hockey player Sheldon Kennedy and associations such as Victims of Violence and the Canadian Chiefs of Police have spoken in support of C-10. Interestingly, the Police Chief’s submission sought to bridge the growing divide over the bill: “We believe that Bill C-10 provides appropriate consequences for serious criminal acts and that it will strengthen the public’s faith in the justice system. Canadians need to have their confidence in the criminal justice system restored, perhaps reinvigorated. It is a critical element of Canadian life. To critics of this bill, when it comes to discussing issues related to improving community safety, there is ‘no right or wrong.’ Community safety is everyone’s business. Some see solutions as being hard on crime, others as soft on crime. Certainly, a balanced approach is needed.”

The most eloquent submission I found came from the Quakers also known as the Canadian Friends Service Committee. It summarizes the critiques of many groups including the John Howard and Elizabeth Fry Societies and makes a compelling argument for the government to reconsider its plans. It is copied here in full:

“As a religious charity with a strong commitment to the spiritual imperative of working for peace with justice, we support the Government of Canada in searching for ways to keep our streets safe. However, we are deeply concerned that Bill C-10, contrary to its title, will lead Canada away from this goal.”

“Our experiences of working in prisons, providing chaplaincy and dispute resolution training, and in communities with victims and offenders, lead us to be deeply concerned. Four of the nine parts of Bill C-10 propose longer sentences, two introduce higher financial penalties, and three complicate reintegration of offenders into communities. We support the positions of the Mennonite Central Committee Canada and the Canadian Coalition for the Rights of Children, concerning Bill C-10. In particular, we note that the Bill undermines Canada’s obligations at international law under the Convention on the Rights of the Child.”

“It has been well documented that longer sentences are not effective in deterring crime, rehabilitating those who have committed crimes, or protecting and supporting those who have been harmed by crime. This is the conclusion of groups as varied as the Church Council on Justice and Corrections (of which the Religious Society of Friends is a founding member) and the Canadian Bar Association. This conclusion is also supported by the American organization Right on Crime. The costs of lengthening sentences will have tremendous financial impact on all levels of government, when the evidence shows no correlation between time spent in prison and better correctional outcomes. Furthermore, the program funding allocations that will flow forth from new policy directives that focus solely on those who have caused harm will leave fewer resources to support victims of crime and the vital community initiatives that address the root causes of crime.”

“Our experience shows that opportunities which offer community connections for those who have caused harm reduce recidivism and are proven to create safer communities. We echo the statement of the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies, “that the Omnibus crime bill not be tabled or passed as it now exists but rather that tax dollars are spent instead on public housing, child care, pensions, health care (including mental health), public education, services for victims and other social needs.”
Further, as Quakers, we are united in the value we place on fully informed decision making and thoughtful discernment. As omnibus legislation, which has its Parliamentary timeline being driven by a campaign promise, Bill C-10 does not allow Members of Parliament and concerned citizens time to debate and evaluate this far reaching legislation.”

“In short, Canadian Friends Service Committee disagrees with the punitive spirit of this Bill, and the means by which it has been proposed. In light of this, we recommend the following:
1. Remove Bill C-10 from the order paper and reintroduce the disaggregated legislation with sufficient time for debate and study.
2. Reject policies that aim mainly at punishment, and encourage policies that provide a meaningful focus on assisting persons affected by crime to redress for the losses they have suffered and rehabilitating people who have behaved in harmful ways to ensure that future crime rates continue to fall. We recommend this focus be based on sound research, and be carried out with the dignity, compassion and respect all human beings deserve.
3. Implement the suggestions of the Canadian Coalition for the Rights of Children and Mennonite Central Committee Canada.”

“To maintain safe streets and communities the Government of Canada must put resources into building a society that supports people to fulfill their greatest potential rather than into reactive punitive measures.”

There are many facets of the Conservatives’ governing with a majority mandate that I could have chosen to focus on in this column. Its far reaching repercussions both to Canadian society and to our fiscal stability led me to choose the mega crime Bill C-10. It stands out as a good symbol of the current Harper government because of their rigid fixation on passing this bill, their seeming disregard for the large body of research that says it is not the best way to proceed, and their reckless high spending to make it happen. Add in their nasty maligning of the opposition if they dare question the idea in the House of Commons and you have the complete picture of our government in action. To recap, they are rigid, disdainful, reckless and nasty. And they have a vision of Canada that they are going to implement no matter what, because they can. The big question is what comes after this?

Jane E. Burton is a freelance writer who operates her company Memorable Lines from her home in Fanny Bay. For more information on the services offered please visit her website at www.memorablelines.com.