Liberal Senators amend Crime Bill

[capricorn]

The Liberal senators are doing two things by shooting it down. One, they're giving a gift to Stephen Harper and the Conservatives, for the Tories can continue to use this agaist the Liberals in an election, whenever it is called.

Building on the "Liberals soft on crime" scenario just got easier.

Two, they're telling everyone who wants to listen that they don't like Ignatieff. They are far more left wing than him and prefer someone like Bob Rae and his way of looking at things. This, of course, further damages his leadership.

Everything the Liberals do now is being looked at through the prism of Ignatieff's (non) leadership.

Ignatieff supports the tough-on-crime bill. The move by Liberal senators only enhances the perception that the Liberal party is not fully behind its leader.

"I continue to believe that the bill should be supported unamended and that was Mr.Ignatieff's position every time it was voted in the House of Commons," Liberal MP Dominic LeBlanc said Wednesday.

Furthering the intrigue is that some of the senators supporting the amendments supported Liberal MP Bob Rae in his failed leadership run. Rae has refused to criticize the senators' decision, leaving the impression of a divide between him and his former rival Ignatieff.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...ub=TopStoriesV2

Once the MSM go down this road, it's very difficult to veer them off course. The Liberals are playing right into Harper's hands.

[Wild Bill]

By grassroots you mean the old Reform rump. They'd better get used to the new Tory party. There's a song that amply describes the situation the Reformers are in, and it ends with "meet the new boss, same as the old boss".

Get used to it? That's what we were told during Mulroney's reign. When you limit people's choices they don't simply swallow it in time. They just fester and get more and more tee'd off!

It's a short term strategy. It only works if there are no other better alternatives. If and when one comes around, you lose a huge chunk of your support almost overnight.

That's what happened before. It could happen again.

[Sir Bandelot]

Building on the "Liberals soft on crime" scenario just got easier.

Everything the Liberals do now is being looked at through the prism of Ignatieff's (non) leadership.

Once the MSM go down this road, it's very difficult to veer them off course. The Liberals are playing right into Harper's hands.

I don't believe it's a soft-on-crime stance. It can be argued, with some evidence. that there is no need to get tougher on crime than we are now, as we all know crime rates have been falling for years. If thats true then the growth of the prison industry is in jeopardy, prisons may become empty hence the need to keep them in longer.

-> Everything the Liberals do now is being looked at through the prism of Ignatieff's (non) leadership.

The MSM has many different viewpoints depending on where the money is coming from. I say he will fail because Canadians don't like his style of leadership, and perceive a hidden right wing agenda.

I believe that Ignatieff will ultimately go down in flames, maybe worse than Dion, only he doesn't have a heckler in his own party ridiculing him on camera, behind his back. This golden boy was trucked in to do a job, but I doubt he can live up to it. Best that he leave and go home again soon, so the Liberal party can rebuild. Major work required.

[capricorn]

I don't believe it's a soft-on-crime stance.

Personally, I don't think Ignatieff or the Liberals are soft on crime. It's the politics involved. The Conservatives are looking for points by planting the seed in the minds of Canadians that they have a more serious attitude toward punishing convicted criminals. The bone of contention seems to be the tougher sentencing legislation as regards credit for time served. From what I have read, there is widespread opposition to the present sentencing criteria.

It can be argued, with some evidence. that there is no need to get tougher on crime than we are now, as we all know crime rates have been falling for years. If thats true then the growth of the prison industry is in jeopardy, prisons may become empty hence the need to keep them in longer.

I know what you're saying. But law and order are mostly emotional issues with the average Joe and Jane and statistics are not likely to sway them.

I believe that Ignatieff will ultimately go down in flames, maybe worse than Dion, only he doesn't have a heckler in his own party ridiculing him on camera, behind his back. This golden boy was trucked in to do a job, but I doubt he can live up to it. Best that he leave and go home again soon, so the Liberal party can rebuild. Major work required.

Couldn't agree more Sir B.

[jdobbin]

Senate cooperation depends entirely on whether or not the House of Commons is Liberal or Tory.

Since it looks like the Senate will be Tory held sometime in the new year, we will see if it is any different from now to then.

Harper will find he can't really reform it unless he has constitutional talks and that the only goal he will will achieve on it is to rubberstamp legislative policies and have a place where he can reward party favourites.

And when the 8 year terms come up and if there is another party in government, I think we might see some of the Senators sing a different tune about stepping down.

[jdobbin]

It's the politics involved.

It certainly appears to be since the Tories refused to let the vote take place today so that the legislation could pass in the full Senate.

[noahbody]

I don't believe it's a soft-on-crime stance.

This has more to do with the ego of Senators, IMO. A few Senators on the news last night were making comments such as "we won't be whipped," "we're not politicians;" "we're here for sober second thought." Again, politically, this is like Ignatieff deciding to take a stand on the EI issue. It's a bad move. The government and those who support the bill, including Ignatieff, are trying to pass the bill because of sober second thought. It encourages guilty people to play games with the legal system and be rewarded for it. It's a bad idea that's got to go.

It can be argued, with some evidence. that there is no need to get tougher on crime than we are now, as we all know crime rates have been falling for years.

This has nothing to do with getting tough on crime. It has to do with giving away time and abuse of the system. Secondly anything can be argued, just not successfully. Crime rates have fallen to to the aging of our population. Guess what, there are going to be more cases of cancer in Canada too as boomers get older. Then a sharp decrease. Youth violence is actually on the rise by the way, but again this isn't about getting tough.

[Mr.Canada]

I don't believe it's a soft-on-crime stance. It can be argued, with some evidence. that there is no need to get tougher on crime than we are now, as we all know crime rates have been falling for years. If thats true then the growth of the prison industry is in jeopardy, prisons may become empty hence the need to keep them in longer.

If there's something I know about it's the prison system and how it works. I can tell you from first hand experience that the prison system is more overcrowded now then ever before and showing no signs of slowing down. There are never enough beds and many many DC's(Detention Centres-pretrial custody-Maplehurst, The Don, the East, The West, Penetang,Lindsay, Hamilton, etc, etc) are over the intended population and many are three to a cell intended for two. Meaning that one person sleeps on a mattress on the floor).

This is how the 2 for 1 started in the first place, was due to this type of over crowding. Here is a link with a list of all the DC's, buckets, jails in Ontario. These are all names for pre trial facilities. CC means a Correctional Centre and is usually talking about Provincial prisons meaning places where people do their time once sentenced to two years less a day and under. Some CC's have DC's in the same facilities just in different areas. Such as all the newer "superjails" in Ontario. Maplehurst, Lindsay and Penetang.

Honestly I feel that this legislation is a bit premature because they have a new jail being built to take the place of the Don and supposedly the West as well. Due t o this the overcrowding problem will continue until the new jail is complete. It takes about 3-5 years to build a jail as they use is expensive and intended to make it so people cannot escape. Epoxy hardened concrete, epoxy caulking and all sorts of other goodies they get to use as materials, lucky bunnies. Its going to be called or is called The Toronto South Detention Centre and from what I've read and heard from different firms and guards themselves is that it's going to be a monster...a huge jail. 1650 male beds, by comparison the Don has 550 male beds and the West has 631 male/female beds and both of those are big jails.

It's going to look similar to the East Where it'll have multiple floors so it'll be straight up and down like an apartment building cube sort of look to it instead of a sprawling look. It's going to be built on the grounds of the Current Mimico Correctional Centre down there at Horner and Islington basically. Mimico CC used to be a POW camp for German POW's during WWII. Thought some of you might find that interesting. Here is a link to an artists rendition of it's basic proposed look. Here is a link to the proposed layout floor by floor, six floors.

On the second link I provided you can see that the bid tendering phase is complete and now they're going through each proposal to pick the winner. This is the view from the current parking lot now from the East side of the facility. If any of you have driven past it you'll see what I mean. Here is a link providing the three proposal teams that have made the short list, so the province will basically choose from one of these bids most likely. They'll pick one and make some recommendations that the province wants to see then set a date to break ground. You can bet that Dalton and the mayor will be on hand for that photo op and ground breaking.

Anyways I initially intended just to do a quick post like I usually do but got carried away and this is what we have now, sorry for the length.

Edited October 9, 2009 by Mr.Canada

[jdobbin]

If there's something I know about it's the prison system and how it works. I can tell you from first hand experience that the prison system is more overcrowded now then ever before and showing no signs of slowing down.

The governments around Canada will have to build a lot more prisons. The riot at the Brandon Correctional facility in the last days was in no small part due to overcrowding.

http://www.winnipegsun.com/news/manitoba/2...5/11310901.html

Overcrowding is getting worse in Manitoba, the union says.

At Brandon Correctional Centre, where the riot occurred, there are beds for about 160 inmates but the overpopulated facility held 282 inmates at the time of the disturbance, the union says.

About 50 were being housed in a gymnasium. Some cells held up to five people.

Some people say pack them in like sardines but we'll just end up with dead guards.

[eyeball]

I've got no objections to replacing old dangerous prisons with new safer one's. It's when the same proponants of new prisons are also pursuing other concurrent legislation like C-15 that will do absolutely nothing to prevent crime that makes me worry - especially in a world where government services are increasingly being privatized. It just sounds too much like a enforcement industrial complex's wet dream come true. The whole thing gives me the willies.

[Argus]

Personally, I don't think Ignatieff or the Liberals are soft on crime. It's the politics involved. The Conservatives are looking for points by planting the seed in the minds of Canadians that they have a more serious attitude toward punishing convicted criminals.

The Liberals ARE soft on crime. They have always been soft on crime.

Conservatives score points with a certain portion of the electorate (center and centre right voters) by being tough on crime.

Liberals score points with a certain portion of the electorate (wishy washy, bleeding heart lefties) by being "caring and "understanding" and "wanting to hel'" criminals with their "difficulies" caused by an uncaring society and a bad childhood.

Since the Libs have been in power most of the last three decades we have softish laws, very soft judges, lax parole laws, and mushy headed, leftist prison authorities.

[punked]

Ignatieff came out today to say he supports the bill as is and wants the Senators to pass it. Where is Dr. Greenthumb to eat his words?

[Jack Weber]

Well if it gets Conservatives elected then they are doing their jobs by representing their constituency just like Ruby Dhalla did. Her constituents want easier access to OAS money. Conservative constituents are concerned about higher crime rates that's why we vote the way we do.

Halton Hills as a "high crime area"????

You got a big cattle rustling problem or something?

[Jack Weber]

I've got no objections to replacing old dangerous prisons with new safer one's. It's when the same proponants of new prisons are also pursuing other concurrent legislation like C-15 that will do absolutely nothing to prevent crime that makes me worry - especially in a world where government services are increasingly being privatized. It just sounds too much like a enforcement industrial complex's wet dream come true. The whole thing gives me the willies.

If the Tories have their way,we will have "for profit" jails and prisons.The Harris gov't had plans to do this exact thing..And we all know how fond Steve is of the Harris ideology...

Edited October 9, 2009 by Jack Weber

[segnosaur]

I don't believe it's a soft-on-crime stance. It can be argued, with some evidence. that there is no need to get tougher on crime than we are now, as we all know crime rates have been falling for years.

First of all, while I agree that crime rates have fallen in recent years, that might be due more to a change in population demographics (e.g. the average age of Canadians is increasing) than anything involving our justice system.

Secondly, there is more to this than just the effect on crime rates. If someone commits a crime, they should spend a certain amount of time in jail, regardless of whether the criminal has "learned their lesson" and could be let out sooner.

[segnosaur]

Gasp! You mean the Senate is actually doing its job by amending legislation how scandalous! There are two houses for a reason, because it sails through one doesn't mean it gets an automatic approval from the senate. That's not the way our system works, and thankfully so.

The fact that its "not the way our system works" doesn't necessarily mean that we can't complain, nor make suggestions about how the system should be improved.

It's funny, the main reason a lot of people give for senate abolition is that they don't "do" anything, this of course is an untrue statement, but when they actually do "do" something it's anathema to democracy and somewhere God kills a kitten in protest.

You know. some people want to have the senate abolished. Quite an understandable concept.

Others would like to see the senate be both effective and elected... taking the opportunity to amend, reject or delay legislation based on the wishes of the constituants.

However, having a senate that does 'take action', and is not elected, is basically the worst of both worlds. Since senators are not elected, they are not answerable to any constiuents, and there is no guarantee they will be the bastion of "sober thought" that they are supposed to be instead of political hacks voting along party line.

[punked]

If the Tories have their way,we will have "for profit" jails and prisons.The Harris gov't had plans to do this exact thing..And we all know how fond Steve is of the Harris ideology...

Iggy supports the bill he said so today. He wants the Senate to pass it as fast as possible. Your problem is Iggy and Harper are the same person so Liberals look silly when they say things like this.

[punked]

You know. some people want to have the senate abolished. Quite an understandable concept.

Yah they are called the NDP party they make up about 20% of Canada.

[jdobbin]

The Liberals ARE soft on crime. They have always been soft on crime.

Conservatives score points with a certain portion of the electorate (center and centre right voters) by being tough on crime.

And Tories score points with the hang 'em high, no trial, no arrest, Tase 'em, shoot em crowd?

[Mr.Canada]

And Tories score points with the hang 'em high, no trial, no arrest, Tase 'em, shoot em crowd?

We Conservative supporters don't agree with slapping criminals on the wrist and sending them on their way. People who break the law should pay the price. That price shouldn't be allowed to be watered down.

Tough on crime is going to pass the way the Tories want it to pass, don't kid yourselves. Either now of after January when the Tories control the Senate but it's goingto become reality.

I'm of the opinion that Harper is saving his big tough on crime bills til that time when he controls the Senate. I think he was testingthe Senate this time to see what they would do and he got his answer.

This is Liberal Senators pouting because they won't be able to stall bills and get their own way any longer, nothing more.

[jdobbin]

This is Liberal Senators pouting because they won't be able to stall bills and get their own way any longer, nothing more.

The ones stalling on the bill are the Tories. It could have been dealt with Thursday but they chose to delay.

[Mr.Canada]

The ones stalling on the bill are the Tories. It could have been dealt with Thursday but they chose to delay.

I don't think so. The Senate could have passed the bill that sailed through the house with the full support of all four parties but the Liberal Senators wanted to play games instead. Now you want the Tories to vote on their own bill...again? That's highly insulting sir.

[wulf42]

Liberal Senators amend the Crime Bill that would effectively end the 2 for 1 DC time that judges automatically apply to all sentences handed out in this country.

The Bill originally had stated that it would end the 2 for 1 and all parties supported it. It didn't even need to go up for a vote as there was vocal support from every party. It should have just cruised through the Senate without opposition but now we have Liberal senators amending a Bill that sailed through the House.

The have amended the original Bill to make the 2 for 1 time 2 to 1.2 which makes no sense at all and without any explanation as of yet.

Ignatieff needs to touch base with his Senators and let them know that he himself supported this Bill in its original form and that they should do the same.

However this appears to be just smoke and mirrors as the Liberals can pass it in the House then oppose it in the Senate. They aren't going to get away with itthis time.

I hope crime is an election issue.

We need to get tough very tough on criminals........the bleeding heart Liberal approach

is no longer an issue...when Harper gets his majority i expect great things to happen

with the overhauling the weak and useless Justice system we have now!

[jdobbin]

I don't think so. The Senate could have passed the bill that sailed through the house with the full support of all four parties but the Liberal Senators wanted to play games instead. Now you want the Tories to vote on their own bill...again? That's highly insulting sir.

Afraid not. The Tories refused to let the vote proceed and pass this week in the Senate.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...1009?hub=Canada

Conservatives rejected a bid Thursday to expedite a key piece of their tough-on-crime agenda, even as they continued to bash Liberal senators for holding up the legislation.

Justice Minister Rob Nicholson continued to rage against Liberal senators, accusing them of delaying a bill that would end the sentencing practice of giving offenders two-for-one credit for time spent in pre-trial custody.

All we see is a lot of huffing and puffing from the Tories but they are the ones who delayed the bill and are now playing games.

Edited October 10, 2009 by jdobbin

[Sir Bandelot]

To my mind the Senate is exercising their legal rights, as they should. The fact that the person gets "2 for 1" is also an impetus for the courts, to move their asses and get some work done, not leave people languishing in jails without a trial. So this is the idea behind 2 for 1, move it or lose it.

The Senate represents the conscience of Canada, and if it is Liberal dominated, it's because Canada is Liberal dominated as is clear throughout our political history. Thats what we are and thats what most people want. Those politicians who are having a hissy fit over this rotten bill, need to get over it. Take a vacation, from yourself