Liberals re-thinking support for drug sentencing laws

Liberals re-thinking support for drug sentencing laws

OTTAWA — The opposition Liberals say they are rethinking their support for a federal bill on mandatory jail terms for drug crimes, after they voted with the Conservative government to pass the proposed legislation last year for fear of being labelled as soft on crime.

The drug-sentencing bill, which for the first time would impose incarceration terms of at least six months for growing six or more marijuana plants and one year or longer for selling drugs, died when Prime Minister Stephen Harper prorogued Parliament in December.

Justice Minister Rob Nicholson resurrected his proposed legislation this month.

Liberal MP Brian Murphy, co-chair of the House of Commons justice committee, said the party's continued support for the widely criticized bill is not "a sure bet." He said the Liberals want more information about the effect that automatic jail terms for drug-related crimes would have on young people.

The party also questions whether the initiative is worth the anticipated cost of jailing more people for longer.

"Maybe there is an argument that the law, as written, is a little too harsh," said Murphy, chair of the Liberal caucus legislative committee, which is contemplating its strategy.

"As time goes by, there's a lingering doubt about whether this incarceration program of Rob Nicholson's works and whether the cost is worth it."

The drug bill sailed through the Commons in June 2009 after the Liberals teamed up with the Conservatives, despite grumbling within Grit ranks that they were being told to support a bad bill so they wouldn't be accused of being soft on crime. The Bloc Quebecois and NDP voted against the bill.

Mark Holland, the Liberal public safety critic, said he does not regret voting for the drug-sentencing bill last year, but added the opposition should go back to the drawing board in light of new revelations that another law-and-order initiative is expected to cost billions by imprisoning offenders for longer.

Public Safety Minister Vic Toews has acknowledged that the new Truth in Sentencing Act, which eliminates judicial discretion to give offenders a two-for-one credit to compensate for time spent in pre-sentence custody, will cost about $2 billion over five years.

"I think we have look very critically at other bills and ask the question of whether that's the best way to be spending billions of dollars," said Holland.

"What is the impact going to be on other services at a time when the Conservatives are running a more than $40-billion deficit? These prisons become a giant vacuum that sucks up everything else."

By sending more prisoners to already overcrowded prisons and jails, the government will create "crime factories" that will turn young people into hardened criminals, Holland said.

He acknowledged that one reason the Liberals supported the bill last time around was that Harper had threatened an election if the opposition did not support his crime initiatives.

The drug-sentencing bill easily cleared the Commons despite being lambasted by 13 of the 16 witnesses who appeared before the justice committee during public hearings this spring.

Several opponents warned that the proposed legislation would fill jails with addicts and young people rather than drug kingpins, who would continue to thrive while small-time dealers are knocked out of commission.

The Conservatives have defended their bill as a necessary tool to fight organized crime by sending the message that drug criminals will be treated harshly.

The Senate, which considered the bill last fall, increased the threshold for automatic incarceration to 200 marijuana plants, but left it at six in cases involving aggravating factors, such as growing in a dwelling owned by another party.

Nicholson ignored the amendments and revived the bill that was passed by MPs.

The legislation comes at a time when several American states have retreated from mandatory minimum sentences, saying they are a glaring symbol of the failed U.S. war on drugs.

The United States experience in the last 25 years has shown that mandatory minimum sentences have flooded jails, with a disproportionate effect on drug addicts, the poor, the young, blacks and other minorities.

The proposed legislation would impose one-year mandatory jail time for marijuana dealing, when it is linked to organized crime or a weapon is involved.

The sentence would be increased to two years for dealing drugs such as cocaine, heroin or methamphetamine to young people, or pushing drugs near a school or other places frequented by youths.

Time for Mr. Toews to share

I'd rather not share that.” Public Safety Minister Vic Toews will not tell the public what the projected costs are of the government's anti-crime bills. Inevitably, Canadians will “share” the costs. But apparently they aren't entitled to know what they are beforehand.
Since when is it the government's prerogative to play coy about the anticipated price tag of its agenda? What's next, tax cuts at a concealed cost? Expansion of children's benefits? Scrapping the GST? Many bills would seem wonderful if they were talked about as if they were free. How do voters, let alone parliamentarians, appraise the value of government bills without knowing what the costs will be, and weighing them against the costs of other initiatives?
Take the Truth in Sentencing Act, which ends the near-automatic two-for-one credit for pretrial jail time. The very name is a declaration that Canadians deserve to be told the truth when people are sentenced in their courtrooms. But why don't they deserve Truth in Budgeting? Why one truth and not another?
Mr. Toews initially said the Truth in Sentencing Act would cost up to $90-million over the next two years. But after Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page began to study the projected costs, at the request of Liberal MP Mark Holland, and a report indicated it would cost $7-billion to $10-billion over five years (Mr. Page says that figure didn't come from him), Mr. Toews announced that the bill would cost $2-billion over five years. (He shared that much.) The price tag spiked faster than that for the federal gun registry, which the Conservatives have taken a deserved delight in bashing.
There are several other bills that may cost more than Truth in Sentencing. Some may have benefits, some may not. The budget for federal prisons provides a clue about the crime agenda's costs; from $2.27-billion in fiscal 2009-10, it will grow to $3.13-billion by fiscal 2012-13, a jump of $860-million, or 36 per cent, at a time of restraint in almost all other departments. Mr. Page will report soon, but Canadians have a right to hear from government about the projected costs of each component of its anti-crime agenda. Share, Mr. Toews.