Conservative Omnibus Crime Bill

General Forums Northern BC Forum
1

***A repost of a page from Avaaz.org calling Canadians to send a message to Harper and our premiers to stop the madness and take a rational approach to crime. Sign the petition if you agree that we need to rethink wasting billions on this misguided and wasteful bill. Even Texan “Law and Order” Republicans are telling us that they’ve tried the Harper approach, it doesn’t work and is a waste of money.

Texas conservatives reject Harper’s crime plan
cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2 … crime.html ***

To sign the petition, follow this link;
avaaz.org/en/stop_harpers_cr … e_bill/?vl

The text of the Avaaz page follows;

Dear friends across Canada,

In days, Harper will try to push through a crime law that could drastically raise our taxes or result in social program cuts – but we can call on all provinces to join Quebec and Ontario in refusing to pay for a useless law and denounce this backwards legislation.

In days, Harper will try to push through a crime law that could drastically raise our taxes and dole out harsher punishments for pot smokers than pedophiles – but Quebec and Ontario have refused to pay for the bad law. Together, we can stand with them and call on every province to ditch the crime bill and protect Canadians from useless expenses.
Crime rates in Canada have been falling steadily for over a decade yet Harper insists on spending our money to lock up our most vulnerable citizens like youth and aboriginals. Spending billions on bad crime laws means that our taxes will rise or valuable social programs like Employment Insurance will be cut. Quebec and Ontario have already said they won’t pay and now we can sign this petition telling our Premiers to join them in protecting us from this bill.

Texas blew billions on a crime fighting system that didn’t work and now Harper wants to do the same in Canada – but we can still stop him. Let’s ditch the crime bill by signing this petition calling on our Premiers to stand with Quebec, Ontario and Canadian taxpayers. Click below to be heard and forward to everyone:

avaaz.org/en/stop_harpers_cr … e_bill/?vl

The total crime rate for serious offences fell by 19% between 2000 and 2010. The crime severity rate has fallen 6% since 1998, which means that Canadians commit fewer violent crimes like murders, attempted murders and serious assaults. There are also fewer brake-ins, car thefts, robberies and drunk driving charges – still Harper wants to spend massive amounts of our money locking up more Canadians. Creating mandatory minimum sentences for marijuana smokers and putting kids who make mistakes behind bars is not the way to make Canada a better place. Join the call to show Harper that we’d rather invest in social programs that really help Canadians.

Virtually all major authorities have questioned this approach to stopping crime: Texas, Ontario and Quebec, the Canadian Bar Association, Academics, think tanks, even a Conservative Senator. We’ve seen this approach fail in multiple US states but Harper remains dead-set on wasting our money on a law that will create more criminals.

By signing this petition we can, together, tell Harper that we don’t want a tax hike for a bad law. Click here to call on our Premiers to ditch the crime bill:

avaaz.org/en/stop_harpers_cr … e_bill/?vl

Let’s make our voices heard and ensure our government doesn’t waste our money on laws that we don’t need and that don’t work.

With hope,

Emma, Ari, Ricken, Laryn and the rest of the Avaaz team

Sources

Quebec balks at Ottawa’s law-and-order agenda
theglobeandmail.com/news/pol … le2221192/

Quebec will refuse to pay for omnibus crime bill
cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2 … -bill.html

The true costs of ‘truth in sentencing’
theglobeandmail.com/news/opi … le1621898/

Crime bill penalizes logic
timestranscript.canadaeast.com/o … le/1450689>http://timestranscript.canadaeast.com/opinion/article/1450689

Kevin Libin: Provinces will pay dearly for Tory crime bill
fullcomment.nationalpost.com/201 … rime-bill/

NDP blasts dismal response rate as Tories cut EI call centres
theglobeandmail.com/news/pol … le2214647/

Crime bill unfairly targets women, aboriginals, critics say
winnipegfreepress.com/local/ … 23703.html

“Bill C-10 will guarantee that aboriginal women remain in prison for longer"
firstperspective.ca/news/325 … ngerq.html

Police-reported crime statistics
statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidie … 1b-eng.htm

Fact Sheet for Police-Reported Crime Statistics In Canada
justice.gov.sk.ca/Crime-Stat … ET2010.pdf

2

From the National Post:

Mandatory Minimums
Taken from: Penalties for Organized Crime Act
What’s new: Mandatory minimum sentences for drug crimes.

House Arrest
Title: Ending House Arrest for Property and Other Serious Crimes by Serious and Violent Offenders Act
What’s new: The bill ends house arrest for a broader range of offences, including some non-violent offences such as theft.
What’s in it: The bill sets broader limits on who would be eligible for house arrest. Among the new ineligible criminals are those who caused bodily harm, used a weapon, or were involved in the import, export, trafficking or production of drugs. The bill also ends house arrest when certain offences — prison breach, luring a child, criminal harassment, human trafficking, and theft over $5,000 — are prosecuted by indictment, rather than the less-serious summary conviction.

Eliminating Pardons
Title: Eliminating Pardons For Serious Crimes Act
What’s new: Fewer criminals will be eligible for what is now known as a pardon. Criminals would no longer be “granted” a “pardon,” they would instead be “ordered” a “record suspension” — a change in rhetoric meant to strike any implication of forgiveness. Pardons do not forgive criminal records, but they mask records so they do not surface on background checks (except when sex offenders apply to work with children).
What’s in it: The proposed legislation would eliminate pardons for those who commit sex offences against children and for those who have committed more than three serious crimes. Also, anyone convicted of a summary conviction, which is considered less serious than an indictable offence, would have to wait five years — rather than the current three years — after the completion of their sentence before applying for a suspension.

Harsher sentencing for child predators
Title: Protecting Children from Sexual Predators Act
What’s new: The bill would amend the Criminal Code to create new offences and impose increased or new mandatory minimum penalties for certain sexual offences against children. It would also update the act with language surrounding the Internet.

Young Offenders
Title: Sébastien’s Law (Protecting the Public from Violent Young Offenders)
What’s new: The bill includes new provisions surrounding adult sentencing and would allow publication bans to be lifted even if the youth is not handed an adult sentence, as is currently the case.
What’s in it: Currently, Crown attorneys only address the subject of adult sentencing if they are seeking an adult sentence. The new bill would require crowns to state their position either way, when dealing with offenders aged 14 to 17 who are convicted of murder, attempted murder, manslaughter, or aggravated sexual assault.

Cyber Investigation
Title: Investigative Powers for the 21st Century Act
What’s new: The act broadly updates current legislation to cover Internet and computer communications, and extends police authority to obtain certain communications data.

Moving Offenders
Title: Keeping Canadians Safe (International Transfer of Offenders) Act
What’s new: The bill places a greater emphasis on public safety when Ottawa is deciding whether to transfer a Canadian offender serving a sentence in another country.

Detention Without Charge
Title: Combating Terrorism Act
What’s new: The proposal would revive certain expired aspects of the Anti-Terrorism Act, which was passed in 2001 in the wake of the September 11 attacks.
What’s in it: The key aspects of this bill involve investigative hearings, so-called “preventative arrests,” and detention without charge. The new bill would allow police and prosecutors to bring a person before a court and compel them to disclose information related to possible terrorism, even if that person has not been charged. That investigative hearing could be held in secret. “Preventative arrest” would allow people to be arrested without warrant under the belief that the arrest will disrupt terrorist activity and prevent a looming attack. The bill also permits detention for three days without charge — 48 hours longer than what is currently on the books. Conditions can be imposed on that person’s release, and if he or she fails to comply, they could be jailed for up to a year. The bill would be up for review within five years of passage.

Suing Terrorists
Title: Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act
What’s new: The bill would allow victims to sue terrorists and their supporters.

Trial Efficiency
Title: Fair and Efficient Criminal Trials Act
What’s new: The bill streamlines long and complex trials by reducing duplication and creating a pool of case-management judges who can assist the trial judge.

Other than the minimums for growing marihuana that seems to be the item that gets used to discredit the whole bill, what’s not to love? Violent offenders, violent youths and child predators getting appropriate sentences? Efficient trials?

Crime rates are down but the crime that still occurs needs to be dealt with. People need to have faith in their justice system and society sometimes needs to be protected from individuals that commit violent crimes. Crime also has to be denounced, dealt with swiftly and people need to be held accountable. The Conservatives won a majority for a reason. Perhaps the silent majority of people that think criminals should be held accountable had something to do with it since the Cons have always had a heavy law and order agenda.

Here’s a few examples of absolutely ridiculous sentences:

  • Teresa Senner
    2 years less a day CONDITIONAL SENTENCE for stabbing her lover in the crouch killing him. If I, as a man, stabbed my lover in the vagina I guarantee I would be off to jail.
  • James Gardiner
    5 years for breaking into a woman’s residence, sexually assaulting her with a knife and threatening to kill her while her children were home (plus a few other charges from different occurrences).
  • Bob Garland
    A conditional discharge and a year’s probation (no criminal record) for sexually assaulting a fellow police officer.
3

[quote=“mrt”] The Conservatives won a majority for a reason. Perhaps the silent majority of people that think criminals should be held accountable had something to do with it since the Cons have always had a heavy law and order agenda.
[/quote]

Actually the conservatives only won a majority because of the way our electoral system works.

If you want to use the logic of the silent majority… you may also wish to reflect that only 39.6% of Canadians voted conservative so the other 60.4% that bothered to vote … voted against the conservative law and order platform and the other major percentage of canadians that didn’t bother to vote apparently were not motivated enough by the fear of declining crime rates to get off their duffs to vote for a failed law and order approach.

4

[quote=“mrt”]Cyber Investigation
Title: Investigative Powers for the 21st Century Act
What’s new: The act broadly updates current legislation to cover Internet and computer communications, and extends police authority to obtain certain communications data.[/quote]

Translation: Police want to be able to search your stuff without a warrant. Don’t worry, they won’t abuse it. Really, trust them.

5

[quote=“MiG”]

Translation: Police want to be able to search your stuff without a warrant. Don’t worry, they won’t abuse it. Really, trust them.[/quote]

Frightening stuff. As our PM said( I’m probably paraphrasing here): "I want a nice stable majority."
I am deeply concerned that the Conservatives will continue to move Canada in a disturbing direction.

6

MandTory mimimums… worked for the us. Lets have 3 strikes legislation too.

7

[quote=“hitest”]

[quote=“MiG”]

Translation: Police want to be able to search your stuff without a warrant. Don’t worry, they won’t abuse it. Really, trust them.[/quote]

Frightening stuff. As our PM said( I’m probably paraphrasing here): "I want a nice stable majority."
I am deeply concerned that the Conservatives will continue to move Canada in a disturbing direction.[/quote]

A nice stable majority and total control over what the sheeple are allowed to know about how they are governed.
www3.telus.net/index100/secrecy

Harper is obviously taking Stalin’s advice to heart.
“It is enough that the people know there was an election. The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything.”

8

[quote=“mrt”]Here’s a few examples of absolutely ridiculous sentences:
[/quote]

All systems fail and mandatory sentences won’t help the cause of justice. Tieing the hands of justice professionals and juries with minimum sentences will only serve to increase the possibility that justice will fail. I’ll see your ridiculous sentences and raise you with wrongful convictions

High-profile cases
James Driskell
Anthony Hanemaayer
Donald Marshall Jr.
Simon Marshall
David Milgaard
Guy Paul Morin
William Mullins-Johnson
Romeo Phillion
Thomas Sophonow
Steven Truscott
Kyle Unger
Erin Walsh

cbc.ca/news/canada/story/200 … icted.html

What is ridiculous is the fact that our conservative government that is supposed to be fiscally responsible is ignoring the advice of the best conservative thinking in the US that have already tried the HarperCon approach;

[quote=“CBC”] cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2 … crime.html Marc Levin says Canada is out of step with the best conservative thinking south of the border.
“We’ve seen in the United States, states and conservative leaders moving in a much different direction than the Conservative Party is saying in Canada,” he says.
“I think the conservative thing to do is to be cost-effective and to hold offenders accountable. And, frankly, for many of them, they go to prison, they don’t pay child support, they don’t have to work in the private sector, they don’t pay restitution — I don’t believe that’s holding people accountable.”[/quote]

The undeniable fact is that Canadian Society is safer than it was a decade ago and despite the failures of our justice system in many high profile cases and your perception of ridiculous sentences, the trends all point to the fact that our crime rates continue to drop like a stone.

To sign the petition against this latest form of Harper Madness, follow this link;
avaaz.org/en/stop_harpers_cr … e_bill/?vc

9

[quote=“MiG”]

Translation: Police want to be able to search your stuff without a warrant. Don’t worry, they won’t abuse it. Really, trust them.[/quote]

Police already have access to a variety of systems/other government agency information/private sector information. Receive social assistance? Police can get your name and contact information without having to provide a reason. Have a driver’s licence? Police have access to the Motor Vehicle Branch database. They can also request a copy of your driver’s licence photograph. Have a bank account? Some banks will provide your information without any judicial authorization.

Some companies/organizations are forthcoming with information, some require a PIPEDA or Law Enforcement request and some require a production order/warrant. If the bill streamlines or unifies the process that would be a good thing. If it made it easier for police to identify people that are making and distributing child pornography then great. Granted there needs to be checks and balances but law needs to keep pace with technology.

10

Oh really… what banks? Id like to know so i can make sure i never do business with them. Requesting personal information youre not entitled to without a warrant should be a crime in itself. We all know how the rcmp are all fine upstanding citizens and would never try to pressure anyone into violating our privacy in order to get around needing a warrant so it shouldnt be a bigdeal

11

Yes, those checks and balances are called court orders and warrants. This law wants to get rid of them when ‘technology’ is involved. If a police officer can’t convince a judge that he should be allowed to search a computer, then why should he be allowed to do so?

MRT – why do police require permission to search a person’s house?

12

Well lets see … Actually the police don’t even have to ask for information, all financial institutions have to report suspect transactions to Fintrac. Fintrac which was originally set up so your bankers would assist police and csis to catch big bad terrorists and money launderers has recently been updated so your banker is also obligated to report you cheating on your taxes…

fintrac-canafe.gc.ca/publica … 20-eng.asp

Welcome to George Orwell’s Universe…

13

[quote=“Speakuppr”]
All systems fail and mandatory sentences won’t help the cause of justice. Tieing the hands of justice professionals and juries with minimum sentences will only serve to increase the possibility that justice will fail. I’ll see your ridiculous sentences and raise you with wrongful convictions

High-profile cases
James Driskell
Anthony Hanemaayer
Donald Marshall Jr.
Simon Marshall
David Milgaard
Guy Paul Morin
William Mullins-Johnson
Romeo Phillion
Thomas Sophonow
Steven Truscott
Kyle Unger
Erin Walsh

cbc.ca/news/canada/story/200 … icted.html[/quote]

The latest example from the list above is almost twenty years old. Im not saying that a wrongful conviction couldnt happen now but with advances in DNA technology, better investigative training, consistent best practices for investigations being implemented across Canada and balances to ensure that investigations are evidence based instead of picking a suspect and making everything fit them they dont happen nearly as often. Also, the overwhelming majority of criminal convictions are a result of guilty pleas. If you factor in a mandatory sentence it gives a judge a starting point. Right now for sexual offences, or almost any offence a person can be sentenced to as little as a form of house arrest. Most minimums that are proposed and in the month range. Juries also dont sentence people here they can make a recommendation in more serious cases but the judge decides.

Mandatory minimums for certain crimes standardize sentencing so that regardless of the judge or jurisdiction youre in, the sentence is consistent. For example, if you commit an armed robbery in Ontario youre looking at a sentence in the 2 to 4 year range. Come to BC and commit the same crime youre looking at 6 months to a year. The guy that robbed Spirits of Cow Bay last year twice was allowing to plead guilty to one robbery, Crown stayed the other and he got something in the year range. For me personally, holding up two different store clerks with a knife on two separate occasions warrants more than that. In addition to holding someone accountable a sentence needs to act as a deterrent. Crime may be down but that doesnt mean approaches should not be attempted to bring it down further. Violent crimes still happen way too often.

At the Conversatives have law and order on the agenda. I havent seen the other parties even pursue updating outdated sections of the Criminal Code, stay abreast of terrorism and technology or try and enhance a system that most agree is far from perfect. As you said there is no perfect system but that shouldnt stop the government from trying to make improvements. The other parties maintaining the status quo and not dealing with issues puts the crime justice system dangerously behind the times. I would love to see the results of a satisfaction survey from victims of crime. The system collectively treats them like shit. If my daughter was sexually assaulted, I would think long and hard about even reporting it knowing what she would have to go through. Thats a sad state of affairs. Bravo Conversatives for at least trying. Dont want to face a mandatory sentence don■t commit a serious crime.

14

[quote=“MiG”]

Yes, those checks and balances are called court orders and warrants. This law wants to get rid of them when ‘technology’ is involved. If a police officer can’t convince a judge that he should be allowed to search a computer, then why should he be allowed to do so? [/quote]

Have a read of some of the information regarding the act and you`ll see there are still checks and balances; warrants are still required for anything that is going to be used as evidence against a person.

Backgrounder

Obtaining transmission data
The proposed amendments would allow police to obtain “transmission data.” Transmission data relates to the underlying means of telecommunication used by a suspect to communicate by telephone or Internet. It can provide information on the type, date, time, origin, destination or termination of a communication, but would not include the content of a private communication.

As is currently the case in the Criminal Code, a judicial order would be required before police could obtain transmission data. Two different types of orders would permit this – a warrant (when the suspect’s data is intercepted in real-time) or a production order (to obtain stored transmission data from the service providers involved). Judicial authorizations for this type of data may only be obtained when there are “reasonable grounds to suspect” that the data will assist in the investigation of a crime.

Obtaining Transmission Data to Trace a Specified Communication
Criminals may route their Internet communications through many different service providers, and sometimes even through multiple jurisdictions, in order to make it more difficult to determine the origin of the communications. Law enforcement officers need to be able to trace a communication back to the suspect’s original service provider.

The proposed legislation would allow police to obtain a limited amount of “transmission data” for the purposes of identifying all of the service providers involved in the transmission of emails or other communications. This would help trace cybercrime domestically, as well as enhance international cooperation.

Preservation Orders
The amendments would create a preservation order that would require a telecommunication service provider to safeguard and not delete its data related to a specific communication or a subscriber when police believe the data will assist in an investigation. A preservation order is a “quick-freeze” temporary order, and would only be in effect for as long as it takes law enforcement to return with a search warrant or production order to obtain the data.

This is not data retention. Contrary to what is the case in some countries, the amendments would not require custodians of data to collect and store data for a prescribed period of time for all subscribers, regardless of whether or not they are subject to an investigation. A preservation order would be restricted to the data that would assist in a specific investigation.

Tracking warrants
In light of new technologies, amendments would improve the existing tracking warrant’s privacy protections with respect to the tracking of the location of people, while continuing to allow for the tracking of objects, including vehicles. The warrant would allow police to remotely activate existing tracking devices that are found in certain types of technologies (cell phones and telematics devices in some cars, e.g. a GPS). Real-time tracking data could be obtained under this warrant, while historical tracking data could be obtained via a production order.

So, the police are investigating a crime that involves computer communications. Under the new legislation they could request transmission data without a court order to further an investigation. They want the content of the transmissions or the information of the person on the other end then they still need a warrant (or production order).

If they want to trace a communication back to a suspect under the new act they can request the transmission data. Correct me if Im wrong but I think theyre talking mainly about IP addresses. If they want to track the sender (he`s using a phone or laptop) welcome tracking warrants (that need judicial authorization). They want to enter the residence or business to find the computer associated to the IP address, still need a warrant.

If theyre working a complex case and need time to obtain a warrant or production order for telecommunication provider data before its deleted or purged welcome judicially authorized preservation orders.

It sounds like what theyre attempting is to eliminate the need (and extensive time it takes) to obtain judicial authorization for a persons IP address and other transmission data, which can`t be used to convict anyone it is used to further an investigation. Warrants are still needed for the end result. Instead of two warrants it sounds like they would only need one. Checks and balances are still in play.

Here`s an example: Police are investigating a residential grow op and want to know who is associated to the residence. Without warrants or judicial orders they can:

  • Obtain client information from BC Hydro.
  • Obtain owner information from the city.
  • Obtain owner information of any vehicles associated to the residence through ICBC and even obtain the owners drivers licence photographs without a judicial order provided they are not going to be presented in evidence. (See a guy leave get into a car, dont know who he is, match the photograph to the person and
    presto)
  • Walk up to the residence on the person`s property and knock on the door.

When they`ve used the above (and other things) and gathered enough evidence to form the reasonable grounds to convince a judge that a grow op is inside they apply for a warrant and go execute it. Without that warrant (and the lawful seizure of the drugs inside) no one is getting convicted based solely on the information received without the warrant. Imagine they needed warrants for the Hydro, residential owner info and ICBC info. Even less would be getting done than now. Police would never raid a grow op.

Want to know why the RCMPs Market Enforcement Teams spend a ridiculous amount of money and rarely charge anyone or why police forces are chronically short staffed, always doing paperwork and dont have time for anything? Welcome to the complexities of 21 century policing brought to us by defense attorney games, out of date laws and bad case law.