Your choice
2011-04-16 13:53:06 UTC
You probably all know the facts of the last few years --- when I say facts,
I mean those realities that are non-partisan, that are not opinion, but
actually have happened. In fact, our government has made history, not once
but a number of times. Here are a couple facts...
· On December 12, 2006, the Federal Accountability Act was passed,
arguably the most vigorous attempt to legislate transparency in the federal
public service.
· In June 2010, TORONTO, Ontario, site of the G20 summit, was also the
site of the largest mass arrests in Canadian history. By the end of the G20
summit, more than 1100 Canadians were arrested, and more than 800 of them
were never charged or booked. Of the 300+ charges that were laid,
approximately 1/3 of them were dropped on August 23, 2010. In the months
following, many more charges were dropped
· For the first time in history, government has been found in contempt
of parliament by the Speaker of the House as they refused to provide all
documents requested by the Commons Finance Committee on the cost of
corporate tax cuts and justice initiatives such as the expansion of prisons.
The government has refused to disclose the full price tags. This is the
third time in one year that the Speaker has found government in breach of
parliamentary privilege. The other two breaches included failure to let MPs
see all documents pertaining to the alleged torture of Afghan detainees, and
an act by International Cooperation Minister Bev Oda who tried to mislead
MPs about the alteration of a document.
· Finally, for the first time in history, a government has moved me
to write not one, but two letters in two years - this one I'm sharing with
you, the first was shared with my MP.
With those facts as the foundation, I want to share some of my thoughts,
with the help of news stories over the last several months.
When the conservatives campaigned and subsequently tabled the Federal
Accountability Act, Mr. Harper was quoted as saying: "We must clean up
corruption and lift up the veils of secrecy that have allowed it to
flourish," and "replace the culture of entitlement with a culture of
accountability." However, in his latest term, parliament has been prorogued
(suspended) twice in one year: December 2008 (two months after the last
election) to avoid a "non-confidence" vote and again in December 2009 for
debatable reasons (government citing need to re-establish budget priorities,
opposition citing government's fear to answer questions about Canada being
complicit in the torture of Afghan detainees and the government's plan to
name 5 new senators and gain control of the Senate to increase chances of
conservative bills being passed) .
Through the Federal Accountability Act, a non-partisan position was
created - that of Parliamentary Budget Officer (BPO) who is an independent
officer of the Library of Parliament who reports to the Speakers of both
chambers. It was the objective information from that Officer that provided
rationale for the conservatives being found in contempt of parliament. The
government told Canadian tax payers that increasing prison capacity,
legislating mandatory minimum sentences, abolishing accelerated parole
release for non violent offenders, and building mega-prisons will cost them
$2 billion. However, the BPO estimates that the "get tough on crime" bills
like "Truth in Sentencing Act"; "Abolition of Accelerated Parole" and Bill
C-39, will actually demand $5 billion from the Canadian tax payer. The BPO
(Kevin Paige) noted that the government has not offered "sufficient fiscal
transparency" about the initiatives, resulting in the government being found
in contempt of parliament.
In my opinion, this strategy is a punishment before prevention strategy and
one that leaves me with the questions: "Are Canadians willing to give up
the social programs (ex: medicare, childcare, education, etc) that will
inevitably be taxed for a crime strategy that is based on a false
presumption that prisons will reduce crime? Are Canadians okay with paying
for legislation that was presented under the guise of a "conservative" cost
estimate that is less than œ the truth?"
Two-thirds of Canadian respondents in an Angus Reid survey last summer
agreed that mandatory minimum sentences send out the message that lawmakers
are getting tough on crime and almost as many concurred that long prison
sentences are the most powerful way to reduce crime. Nearly half thought
crime rates had increased in the past five years.
HOWEVER, the reality is that prisons and mandatory minimums do not work in
the way that Canadians hope. In fact, over the last 10 years, our crime
rate has decreased. The volume of reported crimes fell 3% and the crime
severity index dipped 4% in 2009, according to Statistics Canada - that
without additional mandatory minimums, with accelerated parole and with no
more federal prisons. But perceptions about criminal activity are not in
tune with reality and opinion polls repeatedly show that the public's fears
bear no relation to actual crime rates or the potential for victimization.
Such legislation mirrors what the United States did in the 1990's with mega
and privatized prisons. Today, that strategy is recognized for what it
was..a fiscally irresponsible attempt to gain voter support through the
immediate response of punishment - without any consideration given to
prevention programs, or how prisons can aggravate rather than reduce risk to
repeat criminal behaviour. In fact, Newt Gingrich, arguably the American
voice of the right-wing has said that the U.S. currently spends
US$68-billion on corrections - 300% more than 25 years ago - and the prison
population is growing at 13 times faster than the general population. He
was quoted as saying, "Our prisons might be worth the current cost if the
recidivism rate were not so high but, according to the Bureau of Justice
Statistics, half of the prisoners released this year are expected to be back
in prison within three years. If your prison policies are failing half the
time, and we know there are more humane, effective alternatives, it is time
to fundamentally rethink how we treat and rehabilitate our prisoners".
With these facts in mind, Texas has instituted reforms that have
strengthened its probation system, reduced its prison population and freed
up money to be redirected into community treatment for the mentally ill and
low-level drug addicts. Since the reforms were launched in 2004, the crime
rate has dropped 10% to its lowest level since 1973.
So, do you still want to pay more money for prisons? Which would mean less
money for families, children, healthcare, etc? With crime rates falling,
building new prisons is an expense this country doesn't need.
Please, first and foremost, get out and vote. Next, please consider for
whom and for what kind of Canada you are voting.
I am a proud Canadian from a peace-keeping nation that has a history of
social and correctional systems that have been the envy of countries world
wide. I believe in that Canada and in the democratic process and plan to
vote for a government that espouses those same beliefs and pride.
If you are so inclined to share this perspective with others, please do so
by forwarding to your own contacts.
Thanks for reading
Tracy
I mean those realities that are non-partisan, that are not opinion, but
actually have happened. In fact, our government has made history, not once
but a number of times. Here are a couple facts...
· On December 12, 2006, the Federal Accountability Act was passed,
arguably the most vigorous attempt to legislate transparency in the federal
public service.
· In June 2010, TORONTO, Ontario, site of the G20 summit, was also the
site of the largest mass arrests in Canadian history. By the end of the G20
summit, more than 1100 Canadians were arrested, and more than 800 of them
were never charged or booked. Of the 300+ charges that were laid,
approximately 1/3 of them were dropped on August 23, 2010. In the months
following, many more charges were dropped
· For the first time in history, government has been found in contempt
of parliament by the Speaker of the House as they refused to provide all
documents requested by the Commons Finance Committee on the cost of
corporate tax cuts and justice initiatives such as the expansion of prisons.
The government has refused to disclose the full price tags. This is the
third time in one year that the Speaker has found government in breach of
parliamentary privilege. The other two breaches included failure to let MPs
see all documents pertaining to the alleged torture of Afghan detainees, and
an act by International Cooperation Minister Bev Oda who tried to mislead
MPs about the alteration of a document.
· Finally, for the first time in history, a government has moved me
to write not one, but two letters in two years - this one I'm sharing with
you, the first was shared with my MP.
With those facts as the foundation, I want to share some of my thoughts,
with the help of news stories over the last several months.
When the conservatives campaigned and subsequently tabled the Federal
Accountability Act, Mr. Harper was quoted as saying: "We must clean up
corruption and lift up the veils of secrecy that have allowed it to
flourish," and "replace the culture of entitlement with a culture of
accountability." However, in his latest term, parliament has been prorogued
(suspended) twice in one year: December 2008 (two months after the last
election) to avoid a "non-confidence" vote and again in December 2009 for
debatable reasons (government citing need to re-establish budget priorities,
opposition citing government's fear to answer questions about Canada being
complicit in the torture of Afghan detainees and the government's plan to
name 5 new senators and gain control of the Senate to increase chances of
conservative bills being passed) .
Through the Federal Accountability Act, a non-partisan position was
created - that of Parliamentary Budget Officer (BPO) who is an independent
officer of the Library of Parliament who reports to the Speakers of both
chambers. It was the objective information from that Officer that provided
rationale for the conservatives being found in contempt of parliament. The
government told Canadian tax payers that increasing prison capacity,
legislating mandatory minimum sentences, abolishing accelerated parole
release for non violent offenders, and building mega-prisons will cost them
$2 billion. However, the BPO estimates that the "get tough on crime" bills
like "Truth in Sentencing Act"; "Abolition of Accelerated Parole" and Bill
C-39, will actually demand $5 billion from the Canadian tax payer. The BPO
(Kevin Paige) noted that the government has not offered "sufficient fiscal
transparency" about the initiatives, resulting in the government being found
in contempt of parliament.
In my opinion, this strategy is a punishment before prevention strategy and
one that leaves me with the questions: "Are Canadians willing to give up
the social programs (ex: medicare, childcare, education, etc) that will
inevitably be taxed for a crime strategy that is based on a false
presumption that prisons will reduce crime? Are Canadians okay with paying
for legislation that was presented under the guise of a "conservative" cost
estimate that is less than œ the truth?"
Two-thirds of Canadian respondents in an Angus Reid survey last summer
agreed that mandatory minimum sentences send out the message that lawmakers
are getting tough on crime and almost as many concurred that long prison
sentences are the most powerful way to reduce crime. Nearly half thought
crime rates had increased in the past five years.
HOWEVER, the reality is that prisons and mandatory minimums do not work in
the way that Canadians hope. In fact, over the last 10 years, our crime
rate has decreased. The volume of reported crimes fell 3% and the crime
severity index dipped 4% in 2009, according to Statistics Canada - that
without additional mandatory minimums, with accelerated parole and with no
more federal prisons. But perceptions about criminal activity are not in
tune with reality and opinion polls repeatedly show that the public's fears
bear no relation to actual crime rates or the potential for victimization.
Such legislation mirrors what the United States did in the 1990's with mega
and privatized prisons. Today, that strategy is recognized for what it
was..a fiscally irresponsible attempt to gain voter support through the
immediate response of punishment - without any consideration given to
prevention programs, or how prisons can aggravate rather than reduce risk to
repeat criminal behaviour. In fact, Newt Gingrich, arguably the American
voice of the right-wing has said that the U.S. currently spends
US$68-billion on corrections - 300% more than 25 years ago - and the prison
population is growing at 13 times faster than the general population. He
was quoted as saying, "Our prisons might be worth the current cost if the
recidivism rate were not so high but, according to the Bureau of Justice
Statistics, half of the prisoners released this year are expected to be back
in prison within three years. If your prison policies are failing half the
time, and we know there are more humane, effective alternatives, it is time
to fundamentally rethink how we treat and rehabilitate our prisoners".
With these facts in mind, Texas has instituted reforms that have
strengthened its probation system, reduced its prison population and freed
up money to be redirected into community treatment for the mentally ill and
low-level drug addicts. Since the reforms were launched in 2004, the crime
rate has dropped 10% to its lowest level since 1973.
So, do you still want to pay more money for prisons? Which would mean less
money for families, children, healthcare, etc? With crime rates falling,
building new prisons is an expense this country doesn't need.
Please, first and foremost, get out and vote. Next, please consider for
whom and for what kind of Canada you are voting.
I am a proud Canadian from a peace-keeping nation that has a history of
social and correctional systems that have been the envy of countries world
wide. I believe in that Canada and in the democratic process and plan to
vote for a government that espouses those same beliefs and pride.
If you are so inclined to share this perspective with others, please do so
by forwarding to your own contacts.
Thanks for reading
Tracy