Tom Clark:
Hello from Ottawa, and welcome to The West Block, I’m Tom Clark. Well today we’re going to tackling an emotional issue that’s heating up across the country, and right here on Parliament Hill.
Female:
I’m frightened for this country, honestly.
Tom Clark:
Well despite strong opposition, the government is determined the pass the Omnibus Crime Bill before Christmas, and it comes with a hefty price tag. But will it actually make Canadians any safer? We’ll hear from both sides of that debate.
What has Question Period become such a snooze fest? We’ll talk to the brightest journalists in Ottawa about the deficit of meaningful debate on Parliament Hill.
And, she was a university student one moment, an elected Member of Parliament the next. We find out how life has changed for NDP MP, Charmaine Borg.
But first, the government promised to pass its crime bill within 100 days of Parliament sitting. By imposing limits on debate, it is on track to meet that goal despite some mounting opposition, the crime bill.
Here is your West Block primer.
Johnny Cash song playing in background
Tom Clark:
It’s roaring through Parliament, but what then? What is the government’s crime agenda? How much is it going to cost? Well, the Omnibus Crime Bill C-10 is really nine pieces of legislation re-packaged into one.
Among the changes, it creates new offences under the criminal code. There are tougher sentences for repeat and violent young offenders. It ends house arrest for a range of crimes and it adds new mandatory minimum sentences for drug crimes.
For example, growing six marijuana plants would automatically put you in jail for a minimum of six months.
Now the justice minister argues that all of this will make our streets, families and communities safer. But in fact, Statistics Canada says that crime rate is already at its lowest level since 1973. So what are people saying on the street about the crime bill?
Street interviews:
Male 1:
Oh I think it is prudent that we try and do something.
Male 2:
Putting people in prison just kind of warehouses them and doesn’t really solve any problem. Right now we’re kind of in an economic crunch so I don’t know how much tax money we have left to spend on things like this.
Tom Clark:
So, what will all of this cost? Well nobody really knows for sure. The government says its entire Tough on Crime agenda will cost $2.7 billion dollars over five years.
The Omnibus Bill C-10, accounts for just a fraction of that cost. Now that includes however, the cost of housing any new prisoners.
We know that the average cost of housing a federal inmate is just $160,000 dollars a year.
According to government figures, that means that this Omnibus bill could mean less than a 100 new prisoners behind bars. But many new prisoners may be headed for provincial jails, and no one has figured out how much that that will cost.
We do know the average cost per cell in a provincial jail is about $84,000 a year.
The Parliamentary Budget Officer will take a stab a full costing sometime later this year.
So two sides form this issue, and we are joined from two guests representing two important organizations.
First of all, Chief Dale McFee, the president of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police; he’s also the Chief of the Prince Albert Police Service, and Chief McFee joins us from Saskatoon.
And Eric Gottardi with the Canadian Bar Association. He’s the Vice Chair of the groups National Criminal Justice section, and Eric Gottardi joins us from Vancouver. And welcome to you both.
Eric let me a start with you. You know, in politics there’s always the law of unintended consequences and I’m wondering if the crown prosecutors are going to act differently once C-10 is in place, will they change the way that they pursue cases or not pursue cases?
Eric Gottardi:
Well Tom, I think they’ll have to. We’re already seeing some of this type of activity with some of the changes that the Conservative government has already brought in.
What Bill C-10 does in a lot of ways with its use of mandatory minimum penalties is to shift a lot of the power and the decision-making out of the hands of judges and actually out of the hands of our crown prosecutors.
And defence lawyers across the country are going to be talking to those crown prosecutors and asking them to perhaps drop certain charges and lay new charges; ones that don’t have mandatory minimum penalties, in an effort to avoid some of these harsh minimums that we’re seeing come into the law.
Tom Clark:
So what you’re saying in effect, if I can sort of synthesize is that crown attorneys may in fact take it upon themselves to decide whether they’re going to pursue a case simply because there is no option except what the law says, and the only way that you’ve got a way to shape the case is to pursue it or not you’re suggesting. And in some cases, crowns may step back from a case instead of stepping up to it.
Eric Gottardi:
Well that’s right. You have to keep in mind that the crowns now across Canada are facing a crushing workload, and the discretion that they had to resolve cases in certain ways, on a particular fact scenario was really key to them being able to manage that workload.
And so now with the harsh penalties, there’s a lot less flexibility, a lot more cases are going to go to trial, and so the crowns are going to have to do something to navigate their way through the overcrowded justice system.
Tom Clark:
Okay, so let’s go to Chief McFee on this one, and you know, in all the years that I’ve spent speaking to police officers across this country, there’s not one that doesn’t want to see the system toughened up because they see the obvious holes in it.
But when you hear Eric say that this may overload the system, that it may actually put crowns in a much more controlling position in terms of how crimes are dealt with or not dealt with in this country, are you worried about the unintended consequences of this?
Let me put it to you this way, I think that there are two types of criminals; the ones that we’re afraid of and the ones we’re mad at, and I’m just wondering if this bill sort of treats all of them increasingly the same way?
Dale McFee:
Well, I think you make a good point Tom and Eric as well. But there’s no question the justice system is congested.
But I think if you look at this bill, this bill is about serious crime.
It’s about terrorism. It’s about organized crime, serious violence, and sexual offenders. You know, these are the things that really do require the attention, and quite frankly are the people that need the stiffer punishment if convicted, and obviously the conviction process follows the same thing; you know the same trial process.
So I don’t see it quite that way.
Do I see it as a balance? Do we need a balance in addition to this? Absolutely. Is the prevention, intervention equally as important, absolutely, but I don’t see that as a nature of this bill. I see this bill to deal with those serious issues as put forward, and that’s the reason the CACP supports it in principle
Tom Clark:
And if you take a look at just one part of it chief, you know with the money that’s being laid out on the table for C-10, there’s a way to look at it. Say, well that can only result in maybe 100 more prisoners. It doesn’t seem to be all that extensive when you break down the money side of it.
Dale McFee:
Well I mean, we’re talking about prisons, and I mean, let’s face it, we have prisons in Canada, all across this country, and they do a very good job. And just because a person goes to jail doesn’t mean that he’s not going to be rehabilitated. Obviously those institutions have great programs.
Get daily National news
But the real question here is, are these the people that should be going to jail? I would argue, based on the serious of the offence, if convicted, in if it meets the needs in the test of the courts that they should. That doesn’t mean that everybody goes to jail and I think there’s a fundamental difference. Is there a balance piece needed? Absolutely.
Would that be a follow-up piece coming later? That’s what we would hope. Certainly crime prevention, intervention are equally as important on the CACP mandate as is the enforcement aspect and those with serious crimes, but I don’t think you can do one without the other.
And I think that’s a message that we really have to start getting collectively together; is a balanced approach. But balance doesn’t mean you go one way or the other, it means you go both ways and you make tough decisions in both areas.
Tom Clark:
But Eric, jump in here because I think you’re saying that the balance hasn’t been achieved.
Eric Gottardi:
No, I agree with Dale. There are aspects of the bill that really that do focus on serious crime. Some of the mandatory minimum sentences, dealing with sexual offences, but there’s a lot of misleading information in the bill. You know, using the phrase, “organized crime” to refer to, you know, mom and pop marijuana shops with ten plants.
That’s not really organized crime that people think about day-to-day. You know, when you talk about ending house arrest for serious violent and property crimes, that bill also focuses on sending people to prison for theft over $5,000; relatively minor offences.
So, saying that the bill really focuses on serious violent offences is misleading. There are aspects of the bill that do that, but there’s a whole host of provisions in the bill that really focuses on low level offences frankly, that people are going to be going to jail for and our jails are already operating at 180-200 percent of capacity right now.
And there’s just no more room for these people unless we build a whole host of new prisons.
Tom Clark:
You know, I’m just about out of time. I’ve got mere seconds left. But both of you, do you think there’s been enough discussion about this bill because it is going through Parliament. Whether we like it or not, it is going to be the law of the land very soon. Has there been enough discussion Dale, first of all to you?
Dale McFee:
Well, there’s discussion on this bill and then there’s further discussion on some of the other points that we need to talk about on intervention and prevention and that balanced approach.
And I think that discussion still needs to happen. As far as the serious crime, I think these bills have been on the table individually for quite some time, and certainly that’s why the CACP supports them in principle, but I think there’s a further discussion and I think Eric would probably agree with that on some of the other avenues when we talk about that.
Tom Clark:
Ten seconds, Eric.
Eric Gottardi:
Some of these bills haven’t ever seen the light of day. This bill should have been broken up and it needs a lot more consideration. And it’s not too late. I urge the government to give us more time.
Tom Clark:
Chief Dale McFee of the Canadian Association Chiefs of Police and Eric Gottardi of the Canadian Bar Association.
This is a discussion that could go on for hours and be just as interesting, but I thank you both very much for kicking it off.
Thanks for being here.
Dale McFee:
Thanks Tom. Thanks Eric.
Eric Gottardi:
Thank you.
Tom Clark:
Well still to come on The West Block, we head into the briefing room to take a look at the state of debate on Parliament Hill. Has Question Period lost its significance? That discussion coming up next…
Break
Tom Clark:
Hello and welcome back to The West Block. This is the briefing room. Well the Question Period quandary: has the premier event in Parliament descended into nothing more than a farce? Is it contributing in fact to voter cynicism in this country? To discuss that, I am joined by Tonda MacCharles, national reporter of the Toronto Star, John Ibbitson, national columnist for the Globe and Mail and Althia Raj of Huffington Post Canada.
Welcome to you all. Thanks very much for being here.
Just before we get started, just for a little bit of context here, I want to jump in a time machine, take us all back to October of 1977.
This was the very first televised Question Period in Canadian history, and what you’re about to see is about as rough as it got.
Take a look.
Pierre Trudeau:
This calls for more than just bland statements by the leader of the opposition.
Joe Clark:
Not wishing to compete with the prime minister for blandness, may I… (Laughter from the House)
Pierre Trudeau:
I don’t know if the member of Prince Edward Hastings thinks he’s on camera, but he’s not. (Laughter from House)
Tom Clark:
Well, that was of course, Pierre Trudeau and as I said, that’s about as rough as it got. Now, let’s take a look at what happened just last week in Question Period on Parliament Hill. Take a listen.
Out of compassion for my fellow compli…parliamentarians, I recommend the book called, “Economics for Dummies.”
Since we’re in books, I also have a book to recommend and it’s called, “Democracy for Dummies.”
Mr. Speaker, since we’re trading literary recommendations today, I hear there’s a new publication called, “Buying Jets for Dummies.” Let me recommend that to the associate minister. The associate minister clearly
Tom Clark:
Well I don’t know, Tonda, is that Question Period for Dummies? What’s going on here?
Tonda MacCharles:
You know, there are days when you wonder, has it just reached a new low, but I’m not sure it has.
I’ve been watching Question Period here for 13 years and, yeah, some days it seems like the insults are flying left, right and centre, but I remember also that the Liberals were pretty good at stonewalling in Question Period…
Tom Clark:
Back in Chretien days.
Tonda MacCharles:
In the Chrétien era, and so, you know, I think the real problem is that there are no substantive answers, and I’m not sure it wasn’t ever thus.
So yes, people don’t have a tolerance for the language flying back and forth but, nor do we have tolerance for kids bickering and that’s what it sounds like some days.
Tom Clark:
And it does seem Tonda that at times, it’s the level of the debate, I mean gone is the day of whit and not that what we saw from Trudeau was rapier whit, but nevertheless, it was kind of funny.
You know, I looked at the House of Commons Procedure and Practice Guide book; you can find it online, and it describes Question Period thus. It says, “It is a free willing affair, with tremendous spontaneity and vitality.”
That is the official description of Question Period from the House of Commons.
Is it full of spontaneity and vitality?
John Ibbitson:
No, neither.
It’s much more scripted and it’s much more brutalist than it used to be. But it’s also a different kind of House.
I have a bit of a contrarian opinion on this. Look, the British House of Commons is very civilized, but the people in the British House of Commons are lawyers by default profession; there are many of them private educated, they’re Oxbridge trained.
They know how to debate, and this House maybe back in the days of Trudeau had more lawyers in it, had more people trained in the art of argument.
It is a broader based House today; more farmers, more home caregivers, more business types. You don’t have perhaps the training for rapier cut and thrust that you had in the past, but arguably you have a more representative House than you had in the past, even if it means less eloquence in the debates.
Tonda MacCharles:
But does that mean it has to be more scripted? That’s largely the problem.
Tom Clark:
Well, and you’re right.
Tonda MacCharles:
Questions and answers are pretty scripted these days.
Tom Clark:
You do, I mean everybody…you know the outrage has to have a little aid memoir in front of it before they can become outraged.
John, it’s interesting that you make the point, actually I’m not sure I believe it, that we need more lawyers in the House of Commons, but anyway, Althia, I want to bring you in on this.
But there’s an interesting statistic; it may be coincidence only, but it’s if you take a look at the three elections prior to television coming into the House, the average turnout in this country, voter turnout was 74 percent. Take a look at the last three elections, when television obviously was in the House, it had tumbled to 61 percent; so from 74 to 61.
Could be coincidence but if the point is that debate has gotten to the point where it is making Parliament irrelevant, this may be a statistic that has some legs to it.
Althia Raj:
I’m not concerned about the tone in Question Period at all.
I think the goal of Question Period is to get us interested and obviously we’re interested because we’re talking about it right now. What I’m most interested in about actually is that the debates, the tone of the debates has gone up.
We have our parliamentarians not reading speeches that have prepared for them by their parties bureaus who are writing their own speeches. It’s actually interesting for the very first time. You have two very different points of views from; from the government side and the opposition side.
And you know, QP was the same beforehand. I mean, I remember when the Tories used to boo Jack Layton when he stood up as leader of the third party. It’s always been like that. I mean I think that, yes we’ve had a bit more interesting heated dialogues in the last two weeks, but I think we have to look at what really matters and we’re going to be looking at Hansard in the next 20 years. The tone of the debates is actually quite impressive.
Tom Clark:
But is there any justification to the idea that parliament itself is losing relevance? I mean whether you say that the debates that nobody watches, and frankly, when a minister or some member stands up at the House, I mean we know it. The House is empty. They’re talking to nobody.
Althia Raj:
But we should be watching it, and I think that because they’re more interesting now….
Tom Clark:
Well, we should be taking cod liver oil too, but I don’t think that’s….
Althia Raj:
I think that we are….because they’re more interesting now I think that we will pay more attention to them. Like I wrote two articles based on the debates that I would not have written had I not been listening to CPAC and been impressed.
Tom Clark:
Tonda let me move this one step out and I want to get John in on this as well. One of the things we talked about in the crime bill is that they are meeting their target of passing all this legislation because they’re bringing in time allocation; otherwise known as closure. When you…is that a proper use or is that an abuse of Parliament? When you say, we’re going to stop debate or at least contain debate on a whole range of legislation and nobody in this country seems much to care about that.
Tonda MacCharles:
You know, part I suppose, of the Conservative government’s argument that they’re bringing in closures that they argue that things have been debated, but in fact, this is a whole new crop of mp’s in a new Parliament that hasn’t had their crack at debating this. So in that respect, I think the oppositions complaints that debate is being foreclosed by motions that shut it down, limit it to a certain number of hours probably have some validity. Some of these bills have had an airing in previous minority Parliaments; they’re right on that point, but I think that even some Conservatives are uncomfortable with a Conservative government holding a very robust majority, shutting down debate in a new Parliament. You’re hearing commentators, Conservatives themselves saying, this makes us look arrogant. This makes us look like bullies. We don’t need to be doing this. We’re going to get it through. We’ve got a majority.
John Ibbitson:
That said, democracy adjusts. There have been changes to this crime bill.
Tonda MacCharles:
A minor change. A minor change.
John Ibbitson:
A minor change, but changes nonetheless. The House of Commons is a thousand years old. Its abitative date. It has trouble meeting the standards of a 21st century environment, but the provinces are steeping up to the plate. Its provincial premiers and provincial justice ministers who are forming the real opposition and getting changes made to legislation. I think, in fact, the system is healthier than we give it credit for.
Tom Clark:
Althia, last 15 seconds to you….
Althia Raj:
What’s the rush? That’s the one thing I don’t understand. You’re right, some of these bills have been debated, but of them are acts that were just introduced. There was never any debate on them. So, why are we rushing? You know, they have four years? I don’t…I don’t know, I’m baffled.
Tom Clark:
Bottom line is that Parliament remains relevant to us, because that’s what…
Laughter from panel
Tom Clark:
And that’s a start; at least four people are interested. Tonda Maccharles of the Toronto Star, Althia Rage of Huffington Post Canada and John Ibbitson, national columnist from the Globe and Mail. Thank you all very much for being here on a Sunday morning.
We’re going to take a short break and when we come back, we’re going to take a closer look at what life is like for one of the youngest MP’s on Parliament Hill.
Stay tuned…
Break.
Tom Clark:
Well they’re called the McGill four. Four McGill university students who ran for the NDP in the last election as a bit of a lark, and to everyone’s surprise, including their own perhaps, they won. Well this week, a look at one of the McGill four, 21-year-old Charmaine Borg; the new Member of Parliament for Terrebonne.
A Friday night in downtown Montreal, a place where you’d except to find a lot of university students, except for one.
Charmaine Borg – French
Tom Clark:
Charmaine Borg addresses the crowd in nearby Saint Therese, Quebec at an event to bring attention to the problem of homelessness in Canada.
Charmaine Borg:
Because we’re together, we’re demonstrating this in solidarity and hopefully we can send a message to our government.
Tom Clark:
But Borg is more than a participant, she’s a Member of Parliament and part of Her Majesty’s loyal opposition.
Borg was elected as the MP for Terresbonne-Blainville, part of the orange wave that swept through Quebec.
Charmaine Borg:
It is a big change in lifestyle, I mean in respect to I didn’t have two houses before, I didn’t go alone before, I didn’t have to commute to Ottawa and back before.
Tom Clark:
Leading up to the election she spent most of her time working on Thomas Mulcair’s campaign. She visited her own riding once. So to say the least, she was not prepared for what happened on election night.
Charmaine Borg:
Overnight, I joke that I aged 10 years. You know, I had to immediately the next day; it means you take on a start and you gotta hit the ground running.
Tom Clark:
Borg has put her studies on hold. She works long days on Parliament Hill when the House is in session and fills her weekends with events and meetings with constituents.
Charmaine Borg:
I don’t have a family, so I don’t have someone who is going to be made at me if I don’t come home on time because it doesn’t really matter. I can work literally until 12am if I wanted to every day.
Tom Clark:
She’s among the youngest MP’s on the Hill, but that doesn’t faze her a bit.
Charmaine Borg:
You can’t let that be an obstacle because everybody who is elected for the first time is such as huge leap.
Tom Clark:
And many of her constituents say they don’t know the first thing about the young woman they voted for; they’re not concerned about her age.
Female 1:
I don’t think her age is the question. I think it’s her personality or implication; the person she is.
Tom Clark:
And MP or not, Borg says this is a typical Friday night for her. This is exactly where you would have found her this time last year.
Charmaine Borg:
Honestly, if it was I would probably be here anyways.
Tom Clark:
21-year-old Charmaine Borg, Member of Parliament for Terrebonne.
Well, it is now time to take a look at what parliamentarians have on their plate this week. The bill that will get rid of the Canadian Wheat Board is even closer to becoming law. It is up for final Commons debate tomorrow. The Crime bill is expected to be back at the House of Commons this week and finally, the finance committee is getting ready to report its recommendations for Budget 2012.
Well be sure to check out our website, thewestblock.ca for web exclusives, transcripts and leave us your comments and your thoughts on our shows.
Thank you for joining us. I’m Tom Clark. See you back here next Sunday.
Comments
Want to discuss? Please read our Commenting Policy first.