Pubdate: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 Source: Sault This Week (CN ON) Copyright: 2011 Osprey Media Group, Inc. Contact: http://www.saultthisweek.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/2398 Author: Bob Mihell LONG-TERM IMPACT OF SAFE STREETS ACT MAY BE A SURPRISE What happens after crooks finally get out of jail? It has taken almost six years and a new format, but the federal Conservative government passed its controversial tough-on-crime legislation Monday, Dec. 5. The Safe Streets and Communities Act, formerly Bill C-10, is a collection of nine bills the previous minority Harper government had failed, since 2006, to pass separately. The bill passed easily by a margin of 157 to 127 in the majority Conservative House of Commons despite mounting controversy over some proposed changes. Several of the more controversial parts of the crime bill include its provisions to implement minimum mandatory jail sentences for violent crimes and for some drug offences and property crimes; new restrictions on conditional sentences as alternatives to jail terms; tough restrictions on parole eligibility and conditions; replacing pardons with suspension of records for convicted criminals; eliminating record suspension eligibility for serious crimes; and increasing the wait times to apply for a "suspension of record". Various interest groups have argued also that the government has rushed the legislation through the House without full consultation and debate. Sault MP Bryan Hayes, however, denied that his government had stifl ed debate over the crime bill. "That is ridiculous criticism," Hayes said from his Parliament Hill office a few days before the bill's passage. "The legislation is made up of a series of bills that were introduced in the past. There are not a lot of new things [in the package]. There have been 223 speeches, 58 committee days and 123 hours of committee work where 295 witnesses have appeared, so the bulk of this has been discussed in great detail in the past. I think that is why our government is comfortable bringing this forward as an Omnibus Bill." Suzanne Lajambe, executive director of the Sault's John Howard Society, however, disagreed. She said a huge concern for her organization is that the government is rushing ahead with substantial changes to the Criminal Code in one bill without adequate time for debate and necessary amendments. Abby Deshman, a lawyer with the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, said the national organization was denied its request to make a presentation to the government about its concerns with the legislation. Subsequently the CCLA had sent extensive written submissions to the government, she said. "There are a few constitutional issues that we think need to be thoroughly addressed before this legislation is passed," Deshman said. "For example, if you look at mandatory minimum [jail] sentences, there have been Charter [of Rights] challenges based on mandatory minimums in the past. Especially here, when you're proposing mandatory minimums for nonviolent offences, such as drug provisions, and you have broad aggravating factors that increase the mandatory sentences. Those specifically raise Charter concerns." But Hayes stressed, "We did receive a strong mandate from our constituents to make our streets and communities safe, and we did state that we were going to introduce this legislation. We have introduced it, and I am very happy that we are putting the rights of victims ahead of the rights of criminals." Hayes added that even if the crime rate trend, particularly for crimes against the person, were dropping, according to police reports and Statistics Canada studies, the government's crime bill was supported by most Canadians and police associations. "So let's not lose sight of that. The legislation is good. The legislation is necessary," he said. "Crime still exists, and we have to look at the victims. This legislation is all about looking after the rights of victims of crime, providing support for the victims and survivors of crime all across Canada." Chief Robert Davies, of Sault Ste. Marie Police Service, questioned whether enough time had been given for public consultation and debate. The Ontario Police Chiefs Association is leery about the possible long-term consequences of the legislation, he said. "The police are after getting tough, but personally I would not want to see an American model," he said. "There is no doubt that this bill, with the various pieces of legislation they're overhauling, is really tough on crime. It's going to put a lot more people in jail, including young offenders, and it will keep people in jail longer because of revisions to parole and probation." If more people are incarcerated, it will cost more to create additional jail space and it will increase the risk that inmates denied parole or rehabilitation programs inside will leave more hardened, Davies said. "People who are committing crimes are not going to be on the streets anymore, but the concern is what happens when they come out?" he said. "Do they have the programming in jail if you take away the parole and make people serve their full sentences? If not, they're going to come out hardcore. That is going to have an impact on the police, if there is no component for rehabilitation and people come out and re-off end." While the police chiefs support parts of Bill C-10, much of their response through the association reflects their concerns about the long-term implications of some of the legislation, Davies said. "There is no component in this bill that talks about crime prevention. We have a community policing model here in the Sault, where we try to address the root cause of crime," he said. "We involve other agencies to deal with the root cause. We find that is a lot more effective and less expensive than just locking people up." Lajambe said the John Howard Society also is concerned about the government's plan to move to a tougher, American-style of justice. He said the evidence suggests the get-tough-approach in U.S. states such as Texas and California has failed. "What they found was, it worked in reverse, and they now are trying to back out of it. Putting more people in prison has not reduced their crime rate," Lajambe said. She refuted too, the Conser vative argument that Canadians are fearful and want safer streets and communities. A Statistics Canada study in 2009, released in early December this year, shows that 93 per cent of Canadians feel safe from crime. Those results are the same as in a similar study conducted in 2004, she said. "The government should be focusing on prevention and rehabilitation services, because there is no evidence to suggest that putting a person in jail will reduce the chance of a person committing another crime when released," Lajambe said. The John Howard Society is deeply concerned also about proposed minimum sentences for non-violent crimes, such as property and drug offences, she said. "The minimum sentences they are imposing on several non-violent charges is a concern to us because there are other circumstances that should be taken into consideration by judges. For example, where mental health is an issue, judges would not be able to allow treatment before sentencing, or alter minimum sentences." The new legislation should focus more on criminals who are a threat or danger to society, Lajambe said. "I am opposed to putting people in custody who are not a danger, instead of providing treatment and mental health services. Young people need to be kept out of custody if we want to help them, because putting them in custody breeds more crime." New restrictions on pardons to convicted criminals also are troubling, Lajambe said. "We are not in favour of people committing more crimes. We are in favour of people getting help so they can become productive citizens. In order to do that, they need to get jobs. After they have done their time, they should be eligible for pardons." Ontario's Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services expressed concerns about the possible impact of increasing the prison population. The ministry sent the following email to Sault This Week through a spokesperson from the Minister's office Rebecca MacKenzie: "The ministry has undertaken a preliminary analysis of Bill C-10 and determined that there will be significant financial implications for Ontario if the legislation becomes law. Further analysis is being completed but we anticipate the inmate population to increase by hundreds, and our operating costs to rise by millions." The email went on to say the new minister, Madeleine Meilleur, calls on her federal counterparts to work with Ontario's government "to provide appropriate funding" to address potential cost increases for Ontario's correctional system. Sault MPP David Orazietti echoed those concerns. "We have to ensure if the federal government is going to download costs to the Province that it comes with additional dollars," he stressed. "But I think there should be as much focus on prevention, and rehabilitation programs to assist people to become productive members of our society." In its 100-page submission to the federal government earlier this year, the Canadian Bar Association, expressed its "serious concerns" over the general direction of the government's crime bill. Lawyers fear it will "move Canada along a road that has failed in other countries at great expense." In its brief, the association, which represents 37,000 members from the legal profession, rejected the "punitive approach" in the crime bill in favour of investing in crime prevention and rehabilitation. "As most offenders will one day return to their communities, prevention and rehabilitation are most likely to contribute to public safety," the CBA brief notes. Wayne Chorney, federal drug offence prosecutor in the Sault, however, has taken a wait-and-see approach to the new legislation, while acknowledging it could push the criminal justice system beyond the breaking point financially. "The justice system will go beyond the breaking point. The government will have to step up to the plate, and provide more resources, more judges nationally, more jails, more probation and parole officers, more criminal justice resources across the board," Chorney said. "Is it worth the cost? We don't know until we try it, I suppose." Chorney noted that the use and selling of drugs, particularly with marijuana, oxycontin and cocaine, has been on the rise locally. Whether mandatory minimum jail sentences for trafficking in drugs or possession for the purpose of trafficking would deter drug crimes will depend on circumstances. "People who traffic [drugs] make a decision to do it," he said. "Where there is no addiction issue, I think minimum mandatory sentences can act as a deterrent to people." As for whether the government should proceed with its Criminal Code changes, Chorney said, "Sure, let's see how it works. It can always be amended or repealed. If the government thinks it's going to work, maybe it will. But they had better be prepared to offer more resources to bully up the criminal justice system that's going to take on a heavier load." Hayes finished with this comment prior to the bill passing in the House. "Suffice to say, this is cracking down on criminals plain and simple. It is necessary legislation that should be passed Monday and then it will go to the Senate." Chief Davies, however, offered a final caution of his own. "The government is promoting they want to get tough on crime and they want to make our streets safer. I sure hope that is what is going to happen and they are not releasing people who are hardcore and not rehabilitated because that certainly would impact police and society years down the road." For highlights from more than 150 pages of Criminal Code changes in Bill C-10, visit the Department of Justice Canada website at www.justice.gc.ca.Click on the news release sidebar, and refer to the Sept. 20, 2011 Backgrounder on the Safe Streets and Communities Act. The get-tough-on-crime promise became a key part of the Conservative Party's successful bid to capture its first majority government earlier this year. The legislation now must be reviewed and approved by the Senate before becoming law, a process that the government predicts should end by mid-March 2012, at the latest. Although the Senate could propose changes to the legislation, the government is not required to adopt any suggested amendments. The Canadian Civil Liberties Association, the Canadian Bar Association, Ontario's Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services, the Ontario Chiefs of Police Association, the John Howard Society, and the Ontario government are among organizations critical of key elements in the crime bill. - --- MAP posted-by: Jo-D