Ignatieff Supports Harper's Crime Bill (C15)

[August1991]

I'm surprised that this hasn't received more attention both here and in the general MSM. What gives?

Liberal MPs are set to give the Conservative government help tonight in passing tough drug-crime legislation, despite the risk of a backlash at the party grassroots.

Under the bill, soon to be law, people convicted of serious drug crimes will automatically face prison terms of six months or longer. The legislation is particularly tough on any offender who traffics drugs or gets young people involved in drug crimes.

Federal Justice Minister Rob Nicholson has said the tougher sentences are aimed at "serious drug traffickers, the people who are basically out to destroy our society."

Critics argue the proposed law does nothing to rehabilitate drug users and it will simply mean more crowding in prisons. Most witnesses at the Commons committee examining Bill C-15 argued against it.

Nonetheless, the Liberal caucus has decided to support the bill tonight, and that has some Liberal party members seeing red. Late last week, normally supportive Liberal bloggers went public with dissent.

Susan Delacourt Toronto Star

Is Ignatieff shifting right?

Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff is shifting his party to the right. He's killed the centre-left coalition. He's defended the tar sands. Now, he's supporting the Conservatives' law and order legislation.

He's taking a big risk.

When Liberals "tack right" ideologically, or have a leader whose image is right-of-centre, like John Turner and Paul Martin, they lose elections.

Some columnist

Here's the opinion of one "progressive" blogger:

This time it's the Conservatives' sado-political bill to impose mandatory sentences on drug dealers, something that most expert witnesses before the parliamentary Committee on Justice and Human Rights have testified would be a disaster. But punishment, not deterrence, has always been the Cons' thing.

And the Liberals, as usual, are tamely going along.

"In the context of some occasions where the sentences have not been appropriate, we're in support of C-15," said Ignatieff, who was at the Federation of Canadian Municipalities conference in Whistler, B.C.

"We support stronger measures, but there isn't one hammer to this problem. We have to have federal investments in innovation and treatment and services in order to deal with these problems."

Shorter Iggy: We're in favour, but we aren't in favour. The legislation will work, but it won't. Whatever.

Link

[Note that he refers to "Iggy flexi-speak" or what I would say is more evidence that Ignatieff is a flake.]

-----

Anyway, what's going on here? I haven't followed this issue closely but it seems to me that the Liberal party base disagrees with Ignatieff's support of C-15. I know that C-15 removes the faint hope clause. (The very vocal, very small pro-marijuana people have sadly taken over teh debate and make outlandish claims that C-15 will result in half of Canada going to prison, or some such.) In fact, C-15 has little to do with marijuana. Aside from the faint hope clause, it has specific anti-gang measures and provisions for drive-by shootings and assaulting police officers.

"The truth of the matter is, those who say that the tougher penalties on perpetrators will not work don’t want them to work because they don’t believe in his kind of approach," he told reporters.

"We know that we’re going to hear these critics, and we know that we’re going to hear the opposition parrot some of these critics because they all believe in soft-on-crime policies."

Shortly after the prime minister spoke, the Liberals and NDP announced they would support the bill in principle, while also criticizing the Tories for not going far enough in terms of crime prevention.

CBC

[Muddy]

Unfortunately most Liberals think this bill address` their casual weed smoking. It does not. What it will address is career criminals using our children in the trade since they are protected by youth laws. Of course these kids grow up and then have to face the consequences. .

[Topaz]

Well, guys here's what BILL-15 says...... http://ccla.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploa...final-draft.pdf

[August1991]

Well, guys here's what BILL-15 says...... http://ccla.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploa...final-draft.pdf

More pro-cannabis spin.

What I'm trying to understand is how and why the Liberal base apparently differs from the party leader. Here's another example:

Don't Worry, One Day The Liberal Leader Will Do Something Liberal

But apparently not today. Today, he's rushing to help the Tories impose automatic jail terms for drug crimes, an idea so stupid that they couldn't even dig up four "experts" to argue in favour during the committee stage.

Not too glorious, Iggy. You should be ashamed of himself.

BigCityLib

I have the impression that a few fanatical (and vocal) tokers are attempting to hijack the Liberal Party agenda. Dunno. (BTW, I note that C-15's mandatory sentencing only applies to traffickers and not to people who grow for personal consumption.)

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Well, guys here's what BILL-15 says...... http://ccla.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploa...final-draft.pdf

That is not the bill, that is a lobby groups slant of the bill. Here is the bill, C 15 http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/P...0400&file=4

[jdobbin]

Anyway, what's going on here? I haven't followed this issue closely but it seems to me that the Liberal party base disagrees with Ignatieff's support of C-15. I know that C-15 removes the faint hope clause. (The very vocal, very small pro-marijuana people have sadly taken over teh debate and make outlandish claims that C-15 will result in half of Canada going to prison, or some such.) In fact, C-15 has little to do with marijuana. Aside from the faint hope clause, it has specific anti-gang measures and provisions for drive-by shootings and assaulting police officers.

Ignatieff simply looks at the numbers and won't allow the party to be hammered on the crime bill.

Now, we will just have to put up with the the crowing on the right that the Liberals cave in. Well, not so fast. Ignatieff is also staking out a position that puts Layton in an uncomfortable position. He will not vote confidence in Harper and stop giving the NDP a free ride in the House.

No election and no issue to keep hammering the Liberals on.

The Liberals can now focus on how the Tories are mismanaging and straining the prison system and endangering lives.

My personal view is that I support the majority of the crime bill but that one size fits all solutions with no discretion from judges, juries or parole boards will strain the system further.

Edited June 10, 2009 by jdobbin

[Moonbox]

I agree with what you're saying. I think our Common law judicial system is the best but I think we need to make sure that we don't go TOO easy when judges etc start making exceptions.

[Borg]

My personal view is that I support the majority of the crime bill but that one size fits all solutions with no discretion from judges, juries or parole boards will strain the system further.

If the general population had any opinion of the people in the legal system - other than a generally negative one - then this bill might not required.

I like that one size fits all - now - if we would only bring back the lash and the death penalty.

Seems to work in some countries - I think we need to give it another try.

Borg

Edited June 10, 2009 by Borg

[August1991]

Ignatieff simply looks at the numbers and won't allow the party to be hammered on the crime bill.

Now, we will just have to put up with the the crowing on the right that the Liberals cave in. Well, not so fast. Ignatieff is also staking out a position that puts Layton in an uncomfortable position. He will not vote confidence in Harper and stop giving the NDP a free ride in the House.

Layton in an uncomfortable position?

It seems that Ignatieff is in the uncomfortable "nuanced" position now. The usual modus operandi of the Liberals is to play left in the election and then govern right. Ignatieff seems to be turning that around.

Why isn't Ignatieff explaining his support for this legislation? Perhaps he has made the calculation that crime is a no win situation for the Liberals and so he simply hopes the issue will go away.

[bush_cheney2004]

...Why isn't Ignatieff explaining his support for this legislation? Perhaps he has made the calculation that crime is a no win situation for the Liberals and so he simply hopes the issue will go away.

For sure.....what's he gonna do when a guy was just decapitated on a bus!

[punked]

Well Iggy is driving me to the left. I hate Harper but wont vote for Iggy either.The NDP need a new leader who is ready to take the left and run as far as they can with it.

[Borg]

Well Iggy is driving me to the left. I hate Harper but wont vote for Iggy either.The NDP need a new leader who is ready to take the left and run as far as they can with it.

Please - go and waste your vote

After all the real world is the NDP

Borg

[Shady]

Ignatieff simply looks at the numbers and won't allow the party to be hammered on the crime bill.

So you're basically saying he has no spine, and no real principles.

[Borg]

So you're basically saying he has no spine, and no real principles.

Plus he is only canadian by birth - might as well call him an american - after all he called himself one while he was living the good life on his trust fund down south

Borg

Edited June 10, 2009 by Borg

[bush_cheney2004]

Plus he is only canadian by birth - might as well call him an american - after all he called himself one while he was living the good life on his trust fund down south

That's correct...he deftly uses his cloaking device of choice for political expediency.

[Moonbox]

So you're basically saying he has no spine, and no real principles.

It's no different from Harper. You don't purposely screw yourself on principle when you know the numbers don't support your position. It's democracy, for good or for ill.

[jdobbin]

So you're basically saying he has no spine, and no real principles.

Kind of like Harper when it comes to not running a deficit...ever?

I know Conservatives are looking for wedge issues. Under Dion, the Liberals might have bitten. Ignatieff won't. In fact, his principles appear to many Liberals to lean to a tough on crime stance.

It is easier to pick apart the flaws in Harper's bill by asking if he is going to raise taxes for new prisons and staff or if he is going to cut services. In the end, the Tories will do what many jurisdictions have done when faced with the cash crunch: releasing inmates earlier through parole which is cheaper. Don't believe it? Looks at some states in the U.S. now where it has become an issue of prisons versus pupils.

Edited June 10, 2009 by jdobbin

[jdobbin]

Layton in an uncomfortable position?

Yup. All through May, Ignatieff has been staking out the position of voting no confidence in the government. It has put both the BQ and NDP is fine lather since they have been getting a free ride in opposition to the Tories. The NDP has already indicated they won't vote for an election. The pressure is now on Layton and he will have to explain to his party why he has let the Liberals take back the position of opposition to the government.

It seems that Ignatieff is in the uncomfortable "nuanced" position now. The usual modus operandi of the Liberals is to play left in the election and then govern right. Ignatieff seems to be turning that around.

The Liberals aren't about to let crime be a wedge issue anymore.

There are other fish to fry about Harper's crime polices. The focus on the RCMP in the aftermath of the inquiry will be one such issue. Prisons will be an issue. And deficits related to an expensive crime bill will be an issue.

Why isn't Ignatieff explaining his support for this legislation? Perhaps he has made the calculation that crime is a no win situation for the Liberals and so he simply hopes the issue will go away.

As I have said before, it is likely that Ignatieff believes in a large portion of the crime bill. He likely sees no advantages in opposing small areas of an omnibus package and it is better to critique the government on how they run with this crime bill in the next months.

[jdobbin]

Well Iggy is driving me to the left. I hate Harper but wont vote for Iggy either.The NDP need a new leader who is ready to take the left and run as far as they can with it.

There is not that much love for Layton.

I don't know of anyone in the NDP who could take it to the next level except Gary Doer. And he doesn't seem destined to run federally and he doesn't speak French.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

There is not that much love for Layton.

I don't know of anyone in the NDP who could take it to the next level except Gary Doer. And he doesn't seem destined to run federally and he doesn't speak French.

Red ED could do it.

[jdobbin]

Red ED could do it.

If you mean Broadbent, I believe he had his chance. I don't know what new things he brings to the table.

[punked]

I like Jack but we might need someone new,with new ideas. I agree Gary Doer is an amazing candidate but I also agree he will be a no go so we will see what happens this summer.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

I like Jack but we might need someone new,with new ideas. I agree Gary Doer is an amazing candidate but I also agree he will be a no go so we will see what happens this summer.

The ND's need traction and this is the proper economic environment for it of that there is no doubt. Even so Jack can't get the time of day from folks, the big fellas in the field have marginalized him with great success.

[Smallc]

If Gary Doer ran federally, I'd have a hard time voting Liberal.

[Alta4ever]

If you mean Broadbent, I believe he had his chance. I don't know what new things he brings to the table.

I think he was refering to ed stelmach