Crime Bill Canada

Check The Facts – Omnibuster Laura

Laura Beeston (Winnipeg, MN) is the Editor in Chief at The Link newspaper. As a journalist she must always check the facts before publishing a story. She asks that you check the facts on the Omnibus Crime Bill because things don’t add up. The facts say that this bill will not help reduce crime. The fact is that crime rates are going down.

Sign the petition, write and call your Member of Parliament now: tell them you oppose Bill C-10!

It could get worse—don’t let it!

aside 24 Nov

Judge Nunn Contradicts Conservatives, Says C-10 goes “Too Far”

JUDGE NUNN CONTRADICTS CONS, SAYS C-10 GOES “TOO FAR”

After being repeatedly used as validator, Judge Nunn contradicts Conservatives on bill C-10

OTTAWA — Conservatives have repeatedly claimed that their crime bill is based on a study by Judge Melvin Nunn, but the judge spoke out this week against the bill, declaring the government was going too far.

On Wednesday, Parliamentary Secretary for the Minister of Justice, Robert Goguen, once again told the House of Commons that “Bill C-10 is based on an important study signed by Judge Nunn. This study led to amendments to the law to protect the public against young offenders.”

“Judge Melvin Nunn may well have done a study, but even the judge agrees the Conservatives are going too far with their bill,” said NDP Deputy Justice Critic, Françoise Boivin (Gatineau). “Judge Nunn was very clear in an interview this week. He shares the concerns of Quebecers and other critics of this bill.”

According to New Democrats, once again, the Conservatives are putting politics ahead of good laws and protecting public safety.“They’re ignoring the opinions of the provinces and crime experts who are tuned in to the reality of Canadians,” said Boivin. “Canadian families and provinces want more font-line police officers, not massive costs for a wrong-headed prisons agenda.”

For more information, please contact:

Marc-André Viau, lead caucus press secretary, 613-295-9228 or Marc-Andre.Viau@parl.gc.ca

LE JUGE NUNN CONTREDIT LES CONSERVATEURS EN AFFIRMANT QUE LE PROJET C-10 « VA TROP LOIN »

Après avoir servi de validateur à maintes reprises, le juge Nunn contredit les Conservateurs à propos de C-10

OTTAWA — Les conservateurs ont plusieurs fois affirmé que leur projet de loi C-10 sur la criminalité s’appuyait sur une étude réalisée par le juge Melvin Nunn. Or, le juge a fait une sortie publique cette semaine pour s’opposer au projet de loi, affirmant que le gouvernement Harper allait trop loin avec celui-ci.

Mercredi, le secrétaire parlementaire du ministre de la Justice, Robert Goguen, a encore une fois affirmé à la Chambre des communes que le projet de loi C-10 avait été « fondé sur une étude importante signée par le juge Nunn. Cette étude a mené à des amendements à la loi afin de protéger le publique contre les jeunes contrevenants.»

« Le juge Melvin Nunn a bel et bien mené une étude, mais le problème, c’est que même le juge trouve que les conservateurs vont trop loin avec leur projet de loi, a souligné la porte-parole adjointe en matière de justice, Françoise Boivin (Gatineau). Le juge Nunn a été très clair lors d’une entrevue accordée cette semaine. Il partage les craintes des Québécois et d’autres personnes s’opposant à ce projet de loi. »

Selon le NPD, encore une fois, les conservateurs font passer les jeux politiques avant la règle de droit et la protection de la sécurité publique. « Ils ignorent les avis des experts en criminalité et des provinces qui, eux, sont à l’écoute des besoins des Canadiens », a conclu Mme Boivin. « Ce que les familles canadiennes et les provinces veulent, c’est plus de policiers, et non pas un programme défaillant de prisons qui va coûter une fortune. »

Pour de plus amples renseignements, veuillez communiquer avec :

Marc-André Viau, attaché de presse principal du caucus, 613-295-9228 ou Marc-Andre.Viau@parl.gc.ca

aside 22 Nov

Who to Call + Email (updated): The Parliamentary Justice Committee Contact Info

On Tues. Nov. 22nd, all day and night, and Wed. Nov. 23rd, we will be focusing our calling efforts on the Conservative members of the Justice Committee.

We will seek to convey the many, many reasons why this bill is unjust, unjust, unnecessary, and against the values of thinking, caring Canadians of all stripes.

Please be polite to their assistants, and if you get them on the phone, remind them of the AVAAZ petition and LeadNow campaign, and that the Canadian Bar Association, Canadian Civil Liberties Association, and the Governments of Ontario, Québec and Newfoundland are all opposed to Bill C-10. Please note that Conservative MPs are the ones to call first, it’s their reckless bill. MPs who already oppose the bill are listed below as well. You may call them too, if you wish, but know that they are our allies against the omnibus crime bill C-10.

Be an OMNIBUSTER. It Could Get Worse – Don’t Let it! Thank you!

Dave MacKenzie, Committee Chair (CALL THIS GUY! It’s his boss’s bill that will make more jails and longer sentences, putting more people in jail for non-violent crime. Tie up his phone, tell him everything you can about the injustice of the punitive system. He should know better, he’s a former police chief.) Conservative, Oxford, Ontario Telephone: 613-995-4432 EMail: dave.mackenzie@parl.gc.ca

Kerry-Lynne D. Findlay, Committee Member, (Take her to task! Shame on Findlay for ignoring the facts!) Conservative, Delta-Richmond East, BC Telephone: 613-992-2957 EMail: Kerry-Lynne.Findlay@parl.gc.ca

Robert Goguen, Committee Member (APPELLE-LUI: il n’est pas acceptable que le député acadien soutienne le projet seulement parce qu’ils vont construire leurs prisons au N-B!) Conservative, Moncton-Riverview-Dieppe, NB Telephone: 613-992-8072 EMail: Robert.Goguen@parl.gc.ca

Brian Jean, Committee Member (ALBERTANS: Call this MP and lay into him for supporting a bill that even Texas Republicans say is wrong and outdated!) Conservative, Fort McMurray – Athabasca, Alberta Telephone: 613-992-1154 EMail: brian.jean@parl.gc.ca

Brent Rathgeber, Committee Member (Again: Call him, tell him what you think about this punishment-obsessed bill and its rash financial consequences: C-10 is fiscally irresponsible!) Conservative, Edmonton-St. Albert, Alberta Telephone: 613-996-4722 EMail: brent.rathgeber@parl.gc.ca

Kyle Seeback, Committee Member (The Province of Ontario says it won’t fund this bill, tell Kyle to get with the programme and dump C-10!) Conservative, Brampton West, Ontario Telephone: 613-995-5381 EMail: Kyle.Seeback@parl.gc.ca

Stephen Woodworth, Committee Member (Again, Ontarians know better: C-10 is a waste of time, a waste of money, and a waste of peoples’ lives!) Conservative, Kitchener Centre, Ontario Telephone: 613-995-8913 EMail: stephen.woodworth@parl.gc.ca

MPs who ALREADY OPPOSE Bill C-10 and are working to stop it from becoming law (not a priority for calling, but feel free to send e-mails of support!):

Irwin Cotler, Committee Vice-Chair (He is trying to stop Bill C-10, we like him!) Liberal, Mount Royal, Quebec Telephone: 613-995-0121 Fax: 613-992-6762 EMail: irwin.cotler@parl.gc.ca

Charmaine Borg NDP (Terrebonne—Blainville), Committee Member (Like Omnibuster Laurin Liu, Charmaine is a younger member of the caucus. She has publicly blasted the bill’s proponents for trying to pass it through too quickly, and with little to no public consultation or respect democratic process. Go Charmaine!)
Telephone: 613-947-4788
Fax: 613-947-4879
EMail: Charmaine.Borg@parl.gc.ca

Jack Harris (NDP), M.P. for St. John’s East (Justice Critic for Official Opposition). Jack Harris is one of the leaders of the Opposition, and has stood against Bill C-10 in every possible way, including fighting its proposals clause by clause in committee. Bravo, Jack, Omnifilibusterer! Telephone: 613-996-7269 EMail: jack.harris@parl.gc.ca

Pierre Jacob, Committee Member (Totally against Bill C-10. Don’t give him a hard time! Comme Dany Morin, Laurin Liu, Irwin Cotler, il est déjà contre le projet de loi C-10) NDP, Brome-Missisquoi, Quebec Telephone: 613-947-8185 Fax: 613-947-8188 EMail: Pierre.Jacob@parl.gc.ca

aside 21 Nov

Omnibus Crime Bill “Tough to Swallow” – Heather, First Omnibuster Video

Omnibuster Heather Lewenza: "Omnibus Crime Bill: TOUGH TO SWALLLOW"

Heather Lewenza is an interior designer and DIY diva originally from Windsor, Ontario. She has it out for the Omnibus Crime Bill C-10, and we are thrilled to have her as our first #OMNIBUSTER!

Sign the petition, and call your Member of Parliament now: tell them you oppose Bill C-10!
It could get worse—don’t let it!

aside 19 Nov

Why we must Kill Bill C-10: Canadian Civil Liberties Associations makes it clear

Unknown

Unknown

UnwiseUnjustUnconstitutional via the Canadian Civil Liberties Association

On September 20, Justice Minister Rob Nicholson tabled Bill C-10, an omnibus bill titled the Safe Streets and Communities Act.  Combining amendments from nine separate bills that had failed to pass in previous sessions of parliament, Bill C-10 would make fundamental changes to almost every component of Canada’s criminal justice system. It proposes:

New criminal offences
New and increased mandatory minimum sentences
The selective elimination of conditional sentences
Increased pretrial detention and new, harsher sentencing principles for young offenders
Longer waiting times before individuals can apply for pardons
Increased barriers for Canadians detained abroad who wish to serve the remainder of their sentence at home
The Bill also introduces some changes outside the criminal justice system:
Amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act would grant the Minister of Immigration broad discretion to deny work permits to any foreign national who is ‘at risk of abuse’
Amendments to various pieces of legislation to allow victims of terrorism to sue certain foreign entities and governments for damages

What are the problems with Bill C-10?

In the CCLA’s view, the Bill proposes a few 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.

Overall, however, the direction these changes set out for the Canadian criminal justice system – jail more often, for longer, with more lasting consequences – is a dangerous route that is unsupported by the social science evidence and has already failed in other countries. Indeed, the research suggests that putting an individual in jail for longer will actually increase the likelihood of re-offending. It’s hard to see how this Bill will make streets and communities safer. What it will do is needlessly increase the number of people in prison, skyrocketing costs and imposing unjust, unwise and unconstitutional punishments. This is exactly the kind of policy Canada doesn’t need.

Below are six broad points where CCLA is most concerned about the impact of this Bill.

1. Broad and vague amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act:Amendments give a very broad mandate to deny any foreign national a work permit and do not specify what factors would be used to target an individual as ‘at risk’ of being exploited. It is also poor public policy to punish foreign individuals who are vulnerable to abuse as opposed to addressing the Canadian employers who exploit these populations.

2. Hollow expansion for the rights of victims: Both torture and terrorism are serious crimes of international concern. Numerous Canadian victims of torture have been unable to access meaningful justice in Canadian courts– and yet the government has chosen only to make these amendments available to victims of terrorism. Even victims of terrorism would have to have their cases ‘pre-approved’ by the government, which has the ability to decide which governments can and cannot be sued. Canada should not play politics with victims of torture and terrorism.

3. Unconstitutional use of mandatory minimums: The use of mandatory minimums for broad and vague underlying offences may result in the imposition of unjust, grossly disproportionate sentences. The drug provisions include low-level drug offences – producing as little as six marihuana plants – and extremely broad aggravating factors which would target all those who rent or live in a house they do not own.

The child pornography provisions criminalize, and would impose mandatory minimum jail sentences, for the consensual, legal sexual activities of youth and young adults. There is little evidence that mandatory minimums provide any deterrent impact, enhance community safety or lower crime rates. There is also little evidence to suggest that they will significantly impact sentences for the most serious offenders – who are already being sentenced to significant amounts of jail time by the judiciary. Rather they will handcuff the judiciary, preventing them from responding to unique facts and exceptional personal circumstances.

>> Read CCLA’s op-ed on this question “Mandatory Minimum Sentences Are Just Plain Wrong“

4. Prison conditions and disparate impact of amendments on aboriginal peoples and persons requiring mental health care: The proposed will amendments greatly increase the prison population, and are likely to have a disproportionate and devastating impact on already-marginalized communities – particularly Aboriginal peoples and those with mental health needs. These populations are already greatly over-represented in correctional institutions, and existing programs and services are already ineffective and insufficient to keep up with general demand. The elimination of conditional sentences for a range of offences is particularly concerning, as these flexible sentencing tools are used by the judiciary to allow single mothers to continue working while serving their sentence and preventing the breakup of families, or to ensure that those with underlying mental health needs get the community treatment that best ensures their recovery and rehabilitation.

>> Read CCLA’s op-ed on this question “Tough on Crime is not National Mental Health Strategy“

5. Unconstitutional amendments to the International Transfer of Offenders Act: The amendments attempt to give the Minister an unconstitutional level of discretion over when Canadian citizens, incarcerated abroad, can return to Canada. From a policy perspective, facilitating such transfers enhances public safety as rehabilitation and reintegration is enhanced when individuals are close to their families and have access to high-quality, culturally-appropriate programs. When offenders serve a portion of their sentence in Canada, it also allows the government to create records of their crimes and monitor their rehabilitation. Absent such transfers, offenders would simply return to Canada at the end of their sentence without any records or legal restrictions on their activities.

6. Increasing transparency and accountability: The CCLA welcomes the required 5-year review of the mandatory minimum provisions set out in s. 42 of the Bill and the requirement that the National Parole Board submit an annual report that includes the number of applications for record suspensions and the number of record suspensions ordered. Similar reviews and public reports to parliament should be undertaken with respect to the changes to the other acts.

The CCLA has been busy making submissions to the Parliamentary Committee that will consider the Bill. We also need you to lend your voice – call your MP, write to the Committee, make your opinion known! Download a list of committee members, and their contact information, here.

It Could Get Worse – Don’t Let it!

aside 18 Nov

Vancouver Sun publishes Canadian Bar Association Critique of C-10

Daryl Vocat's Poster/Virus for AIDS Action Now

Canada’s lawyers have joined a host of others — from Texas Republicans to criminologists and civil libertarians — denouncing the federal omnibus crime bill.

Ironically titled The Safe Streets and Communities Act, Bill C-10 is being rammed through Parliament by the Conservative majority government although many of its measures are a proven waste of money and effort.

Many penology and law-enforcement specialists say the ill-considered legislation could make things worse.

Ontario and Québec are balking; B.C. has said whoa, let’s have a look at the numbers.

Texas, California and other states that tried these policies were unable to afford the prison system they spawned.

Representing over 37,000 lawyers across the country, the Canadian Bar Association now is lobbying MPs urging them to listen to reason.

“This bill will change our country’s entire approach to crime at every stage of the justice system,” said CBA president and Nova Scotia lawyer Trinda L. Ernst.

“It represents a huge step backwards; rather than prioritizing public safety, it emphasizes retribution above all else. It’s an approach that will make us less safe, less secure, and ultimately, less Canadian.”