Fall Election

[d_rawk]

mattm - what riding are you in?

[Hux]

**proud of mattm**

(he gets it)

[mattm]

mattm - what riding are you in?

Ottawa something or other. I don't vote by riding and don't pay much attention to who my MP is. I vote for who I want to govern my country and therefore look at the parties as a whole, or a single body to be voted for.

In other words, even if I hated the NDP dude for my riding and the PC dude was actually cool, I'd still vote the NDP dude in because ultimately that vote is what counts nationwide and so I might be disappointed locally, I've at least got the piece of mind to say that I voted for the party I wanted to run my country.

In other even shorter words: I vote for the party, not the MP.

PS: I just figured out that my riding is ottawa center and I think the dude I'm voting for is Paul Dewar

Edited September 9, 2008 by Guest

[d_rawk]

Hi Hux.

[Hux]

Hey bud.

Fair enough mattm, but if the election results are something like:

Con 121 seats

Lib 120 seats

etc..

...and Paul Dewar wins Ottawa Centre by 1 vote over the Liberal candidate I will be pissed at mattm as by voting NDP he personally made Harper PM again .

[Birdy]

I think of things like education and health care which, in the eyes of the PC's, aren't exactly all that important so I can't vote for them.

No offense, and definitely not trying to be argumentative here, but I find this remark almost outright insulting. This makes me think you really don't show too much understanding of what Conservative thought is regarding education and health care as if you did, you would know the CPC puts a damn good amount of it into policies on the two. Whether you agree with such policy or not isn't the point, but to play it off like Conservatives could care less is flat out wrong and pretty shitty.

[Birdy]

Oh crap! I just wrote a detailed reply to this and got an error from jambands.ca when trying to post it.

Short (or at least less organized) version:

That's understandable, and there was no shortage of lax reporting and maybe just flat out misunderstanding by the press at the time that the law was being passed. But that isn't what Harper was doing, and isn't what he said that he was doing.

It was already mandatory that an election be triggered when a certain amount of time elapsed since the last (5 years maximum under section 4 of the CCoRaF) and this was not in dispute or contested in any way. Harper's grievance was that elections were being called prematurely, at times when the political winds favoured the governing party, instead of being triggered by that time expiry or by dissolution through lack of confidence. This was a major complaint of the Conservative Party when the Liberal Party were in power. Harper's law was designed and promoted to prevent exactly what he is doing now - the governing party calling an early election at their leisure. That isn't a judgment call, mind, it just is what it is. I was never particularly comfortable with the law, and hem and haw on it. I'm rather happy that it is back in focus so that we can start thinking it through again.

May 2006 Said:The proposed bill would abandon an age-old British practice followed in Canada since Confederation. As things stand, a government can carry on for as many as five years without an election — the period set out in the 1982 Constitution — but the prime minister can call an election at any time within that span.

"Fixed election dates prevent governments from calling snap elections for short-term political advantage," Harper said. "They level the playing field for all parties and the rules are clear for everybody."

Because the government could be defeated in the Commons before the end of a four-year term, "the will of a majority in Parliament will always prevail," he said.

"But fixed election dates stop leaders from trying to manipulate the calendar simply for partisan political advantage."

He said he was willing to give up a prerogative traditionally enjoyed by sitting prime ministers.

"I read the polls saying if I called an election now we would win a majority. The same polls also say no one wants an election now, and no one does want an unnecessary election. So unless we're defeated or prevented from governing we want to keep moving forward to make this minority parliament work over the next 3½ years."

Thanks dude!

[ollie]

In other even shorter words: I vote for the party, not the MP.

Me too.

[mattm]

I think of things like education and health care which' date=' in the eyes of the PC's, aren't exactly all that important so I can't vote for them.

[/quote']

Sorry, perhaps I mispoke. I just constantly hear from friends who are teachers about how their classes just keep getting bigger and funding keeps getting smaller and that's all I have to go on. I have seen no proof.

As for health care, well, I don't have a doctor though I probably should, I've had a hard time finding one. Steph had a super hard time finding an obstetrician (I think that's the word, doctor that does baby stuff). Probably not the PC's fault but I can't help but think that the billions of dollars spent on death (war and military that for some reason we all of a sudden needs lots more of) could have been much better spent on education and health care.

One thing I have noticed is that I pay more in taxes, have had tonnes cut out of my child benefits (including the very insulting joke that is the $100/month for child care which doesn't cover shit all) and haven't really seen any living improvements. I don't mind paying more taxes but I want to see something come of it. I want to see smaller classes, less bums on the streets. Less cops and more education in order to prevent crime so that we didn't need as many cops.

Sorry if there's emotion in all of that but I'm quite emotional in my dislike of the PC's. Since they've been in power my living has gone down and I haven't actually seen anything good come of it.

Here's another thing. My work depends on R&D grants which have also dried up as opposed to other years.

Lets talk the environment. What've the PC's done in that regard? I can't think of a thing, really, more of a backwards trek (tar sands and kyoto come to mind there).

Actually, just out of curiosity, I'm joe regular dude, family income under $50,000 and a huge student loan to pay off. What have the PC's done for me? What will they do for me to make my life and supporting my family easier?

Edited September 9, 2008 by Guest

[Birdy]

No worries and understandable when going off what you hear. Just keep in mind that problems with health care weren't created two years ago. Problems with health care have existed in a system that perpetuated these problems over many years under (for the most part) Liberal governments. Conservatives have always seemed to me to be fixers of problems and take a more fiscal approach to finding solutions... and as such come across as the bad guy when all that really is trying to be accomplished is a little clean-up for the long term. Sure the timing of the clean-up attempts isn't always the best, but really, the Cons don't get a shot at these things except for once every ten years or so, so I guess you do what you can, when you can.

As for dollars on death, and reading some of your posts before on here, we share a totally different opinion on what our troops are trying to accomplish overseas. I'm more of a libertarian in the respect that I believe we're all people of the earth and not you're Canadian, you're a Saudi, so helping out where help is needed is okay with me. Help is needed in Afghanistan. And as long as it continues to come in terms of building roads, digging ditches and erecting hydro poles, I'm all for our involvement.

As for teachers, god love them as I think they have one of the noblest professions of them all, but they didn't start complaining come Mike Harris and/or Stephen Harper. They've always complained. I come from a family of three generation long teachers and they've always complained. While I agree that larger classes suck, there has to be a financial reality to correspond with it and sometimes, financial realities suck too.

To each their own though. I understand (most of the time) where liberally thinking folks are coming from, I just wish more people put an effort into understanding the other side of the fence.

[Birdy]

Didn't see the edited post!

I would suggest visiting www.conservative.ca and checking out the 'key issues' page which will give you an idea of what conservative policy is towards things like the environment, child benefits and taxes. You can also read where other parties have stood (or not stood) on the same issues.

Mind you if you go into strict budget figures and compare how much money is going into an initiative from one party to the next, keep in mind the conservatives are the fiscal problem solvers and have always been a little tight on the wad. I think this to be a good thing, where others don't. I'm all about the long term though and prefer to focus on making sure we're able to continue to fund programs well down the road. And also to ensure those powers (business) that are able to spur economic growth on their own without government expenditure are given the opportunity to do just that. It's pretty important.

[Kanada Kev]

As for teachers, god love them as I think they have one of the noblest professions of them all, but they didn't start complaining come Mike Harris and/or Stephen Harper. They've always complained. I come from a family of three generation long teachers and they've always complained. While I agree that larger classes suck, there has to be a financial reality to correspond with it and sometimes, financial realities suck too.

"Financial realities" should NOT come at the expense of our children, their education, and their health. They are our fucking FUTURE. We have to nurture them whatever the cost. Sorry, but the Conservatives at all levels have screwed our education system. Mike Harris obliterated the backbone of Ontario's eduction system with Bill 160. Teacher's were some of the only people back then to truly gain an understanding of what that Bill was going to do. They had the balls to stand by their educated opinions too.

Sure, you can say that we can keep cutting education spending, slash the number of teachers but do you really want a public eduction system like that in the US? It's appalling. We are already in a situation where neighbourhoods that can generate more money from fund raising campaigns end up with more of the tools and facilities to provide a quality basic education. That's not right. The base should be there for all schools.

By the way, have you been inside any public schools lately? So many are in such disrepair that they simply can't be fixed. There are rodent infestations (trust me, my wife has worked at numerous schools like this) and with cutbacks to janitorial staff (sure, saving money right?) the schools are filthy.

Sorry for the rant, but from being so close to the public education system (and having 2 children in it right now) it's bloody important. It should be for EVERYONE ... these kids are going to be taking care of us, our economy, and our country in the future!

[ollie]

Stephen Harper's a fruit.

[d_rawk]

I'm not sure that deciding your vote in a federal election on education issues is the way to go, given that educational funding is largely a provincial affair.

[Birdy]

"Financial realities" should NOT come at the expense of our children, their education, and their health. They are our fuÇking FUTURE. We have to nurture them whatever the cost. Sorry, but the Conservatives at all levels have screwed our education system. Mike Harris obliterated the backbone of Ontario's eduction system with Bill 160. Teacher's were some of the only people back then to truly gain an understanding of what that Bill was going to do. They had the balls to stand by their educated opinions too.

Sure, you can say that we can keep cutting education spending, slash the number of teachers but do you really want a public eduction system like that in the US? It's appalling. We are already in a situation where neighbourhoods that can generate more money from fund raising campaigns end up with more of the tools and facilities to provide a quality basic education. That's not right. The base should be there for all schools.

By the way, have you been inside any public schools lately? So many are in such disrepair that they simply can't be fixed. There are rodent infestations (trust me, my wife has worked at numerous schools like this) and with cutbacks to janitorial staff (sure, saving money right?) the schools are filthy.

Sorry for the rant, but from being so close to the public education system (and having 2 children in it right now) it's bloody important. It should be for EVERYONE ... these kids are going to be taking care of us, our economy, and our country in the future!

Is it raining money outside?

"Financial realities should not come at the expense of our children"?

If only life were that good! No more child poverty, no more hunger, no more homelesness. Financial realities are REALITY. If you care about the future, nothing should be more important than your financial reality of today. Seriously, i'm a little stunned.

Kev, I understand your frustrations. I've been in a few public schools too lately. I live with a teacher. But the reality as I see it, is our kids get a pretty damn good education for free. Compared to probably near 75% of the world's child population, they're little Albert Einsteins. The resources made available to teachers, while it may not be exactly what is wanted, is pretty damn good. Our class sizes, while not as small as hoped, are still manageable. Our teacher's salaries, while not as high as some would hope, are still a decent wage. In comparison, our education system kicks some serious ass. So forgive me if I don't agree with the 'our system's going to shit' philosophy. I'd venture to say those who do don't exactly know what 'shit' is.

I'm all for neighbourhood fundraising campaigns. I think that's a good thing.

[Hux]

Mind you if you go into strict budget figures and compare how much money is going into an initiative from one party to the next, keep in mind the conservatives are the fiscal problem solvers and have always been a little tight on the wad.

So how do you explain:

a) (Since you're talking "budget figures") that the last two Conservative Budgets have been the biggest spending in Canadian history? The Harper Gov't in each of the last 2 years has spent more than than Trudeau, Mulroney, Chretien or Martin ever did in any of their years as PM.

By spending so much and eliminating the prudence/contingency reserve of 3 billion the Libs used to keep as a cushion in case of a crisis (ie. SARS, natural disasters), the Conservatives have decided to spend spend spend, in the moment, but with the economy in a downturn - they have put the country's books a hair away from deficit spending?

c) That conservative governments here and in the US always leave the biggest deficits and debt. In the previous Conservative gov't (Mulroney) more public debt was accumulated by any post WWII gov't -->COMBINED. In, Ontario the Harris/Eves gang made all the cuts but still left a $6 billion deficit. In the US it is the Republican/Conservatives who always run up deficits and debt, the Reagans/Bushs vs. Clinton etc.

And also to ensure those powers (business) that are able to spur economic growth on their own without government expenditure are given the opportunity to do just that. It's pretty important.

Now you're talking like a Libertarian and like the old Reform Party who used to characterize gov't encouraging growth in an industry through investment as "corporate welfare"...Harper used to be a believer, what do you think of his "$250-million, five-year automotive innovation fund" that on the eve of an election dolled out $80 million to fund "a financial aid package to help reopen Ford's mothballed Essex engine plant in Windsor, Ont"...just curious how you square that with your Libertarian beliefs.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/09/03/windsorfordmoney.html

I can see why the hardcore rightys say Harper became "Liberal light", he stopped being a fiscal Conservative when he became PM.

[mattm]

Hey bud.

Fair enough mattm, but if the election results are something like:

Con 121 seats

Lib 120 seats

etc..

...and Paul Dewar wins Ottawa Centre by 1 vote over the Liberal candidate I will be pissed at mattm as by voting NDP he personally made Harper PM again .

It is for that exact reason that I have always voted liberal (actually, I liked them when I first started voting). It's a tough call I think but you're right, and yes, I've thought of it. My usual campaign at vote time is to try to persuade people to vote for liberal but now I'm not even going to do that. Also, it wouldn't be my fault singlehandedly, it would be the fault of everyone in my riding who voted for dewar. The hardest part is that I live in a liberal riding so that's actually a potential reality you've pointed out there (it will be a fight between liberal and ndp in my riding, pc's don't win here I don't think, which is nice).

[mattm]

I'm not sure that deciding your vote in a federal election on education issues is the way to go, given that educational funding is largely a provincial affair.

Jack Layton's New Democrats: Putting you and your family first.

This election, Jack Layton and his team of New Democrats will release an achievable plan for better, more affordable education and training in every region of Canada. Layton's team has already led the way in Parliament:

* Tabled the Canada Post Secondary Education Act to bolster Canada's college and university system—linking reliable federal funding to provincial commitments to improve both quality and affordability for students.

* Launched a Fix Student Aid Campaign calling for a lower student loan interest rate, national needs-based grants, a national ombudsperson, and protections against predatory collections agencies.

* Released a Green Collar Jobs plan based on creating training spaces and partnerships to foster sustainable, environmentally-aware jobs in every region of the country.

* Tabled legislation to broaden eligibility for Employment Insurance training benefits to include those who participate in full-time training programs and unemployed workers who do not otherwise qualify for EI.

* Earlier, when Jack Layton rewrote the 2005 Liberal budget, he stopped $4.6-billion in corporate tax giveaways and invested in regular people’s priorities instead— including $1.5-billion to reduce education and training costs.

I can't find any info on any of the other sites regarding education, and yup, birdy, I've read the PC's key issues as well as the NDP's section on their issues. I can't find the liberal one and to be honest, their site sucks compared with the nice lists the PC's and NDP's have up.

I also notice things like (and this is between the PC's and NDP's as the liberal site, mentioned above, kinda sucks in this regard):

Stephen Harper can’t be trusted.

* He tabled three failed “clean air†plans—each one exposed for ensuring more climate-changing pollution for years to come, with more breaks for big polluters.

* After abandoning Canada’s Kyoto emissions targets in his last Throne Speech, Harper worked with George Bush to block consensus on post-Kyoto targets at the 2007 UN Climate Change Conference in Bali.

* He renewed $1.4-billion in annual subsidies for companies developing Alberta’s tar sands, until 2010. And his “intensity-based†targets would let tar sands emissions double by 2020 to 80 megatonnes—more than all passenger cars in Canada combined.

* The tar sands development that he subsidizes is a looming disaster: related pollution is causing acid rain in Saskatchewan and beyond; toxic tailing ponds visible from space are seeping into rivers; and Harper's plan would let tar sands-based greenhouse gas emissions double by 2020.

* Instead of leading the way to a New Energy Economy, he squandered $50-billion on pointless corporate tax giveaways that disproportionately go to profitable oil and gas companies.

The NDP Record

* The NDP voted against $4.5 billion in funding to clean up Canada’s air and water, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and combat climate change.

* The NDP supported a Liberal environmental plan – Bill C-288 – that would cripple Canada’s economy but do little to clean up Canada’s air.

and in regards to the little ones:

Stephen Harper can't be trusted.

* One of his first acts as Prime Minister was to cancel agreements with Canadian provinces to fund the creation of affordable child care spaces for working families.

* Ignoring all advice from early learning advocates, he committed to create 125,000 new at-work child care spaces a year by offering tax credits to private employers—and not one new space has ever been created through this scheme.

* He replaced his failed tax credit scheme with a $250-million provincial child care transfer—one fifth of what experts say is needed to begin filling the national shortage of regulated, affordable child care spaces.

* His "Universal Child Care Benefit" is a deceptive family allowance subject to unfair clawbacks—families that need childcare the most get the least, and nobody gets more than $100/month, which does little to offset the average family's child care costs.

The NDP Record

* New Democrats joined the Liberals in opposing the 2006 and 2007 budgets including the Universal Child Care Benefit and $250 million per year for new child care spaces.

* The NDP plan for child care puts interest groups, bureaucrats, and politicians ahead of parents when it comes to federal funding assistance.

ummmmmm, the second PC argument doesn't even make sense to me since the PC's don't do anything for parents either and put private groups ahead of public and if child care was cheaper, that would actually be funding assistance to parents in that they could afford to buy healthier food and healthier living environments for the kids instead of putting all that money into daycare...

There's also the PC view on crime. Heavier punishments with more jail time (ouch to canadian tax payers for that). Hiring of many more police rather than perhaps funding social programs to prevent crime rather than punish those that commit crime. Put a whole crap load of punishments for gun crimes (good in a way) and yet, if there were less guns, there'd be less gun violence... From what I've observed, a lot of crime comes from people in dire straights who either lack the education to better themselves or come from areas filled with poverty in which crime is rampant. The bottom line is that a lot of the crime, including gun crime, is, in my humble opinion, poverty related. Might also be drug related (buddy holds up a convenient store so that he can buy his crack) but I also think that a lot of drug problems stem from poverty (drugs are a way to forget the fact that you live like poop and then become addictive).

I could go on forever but I have a feeling that this post is long enough and that it needs some cutting up from others before proceeding (I learn by you guys cutting my posts up, even if I might get emotional about some things, I still learn a lot).

[AD]

The hardest part is that I live in a liberal riding

not sure if you used small-L liberal on purpose, as Ottawa Centre is an NDP riding at the moment.

[mattm]

Good call AD, I was looking at the wrong riding when I read that the liberals won last time. Add to that the huge amount of liberal signs during the last election (provincial) and for some reason I came to that conclusion.

So then I don't really have a worry as I posted above since I'm already part of an NDP riding

Edited September 10, 2008 by Guest

[Birdy]

Mind you if you go into strict budget figures and compare how much money is going into an initiative from one party to the next' date=' keep in mind the conservatives are the fiscal problem solvers and have always been a little tight on the wad.

[/quote']

So how do you explain:

a) (Since you're talking "budget figures") that the last two Conservative Budgets have been the biggest spending in Canadian history? The Harper Gov't in each of the last 2 years has spent more than than Trudeau, Mulroney, Chretien or Martin ever did in any of their years as PM.

By spending so much and eliminating the prudence/contingency reserve of 3 billion the Libs used to keep as a cushion in case of a crisis (ie. SARS, natural disasters), the Conservatives have decided to spend spend spend, in the moment, but with the economy in a downturn - they have put the country's books a hair away from deficit spending?

c) That conservative governments here and in the US always leave the biggest deficits and debt. In the previous Conservative gov't (Mulroney) more public debt was accumulated by any post WWII gov't -->COMBINED. In, Ontario the Harris/Eves gang made all the cuts but still left a $6 billion deficit. In the US it is the Republican/Conservatives who always run up deficits and debt, the Reagans/Bushs vs. Clinton etc.

And also to ensure those powers (business) that are able to spur economic growth on their own without government expenditure are given the opportunity to do just that. It's pretty important.

Now you're talking like a Libertarian and like the old Reform Party who used to characterize gov't encouraging growth in an industry through investment as "corporate welfare"...Harper used to be a believer, what do you think of his "$250-million, five-year automotive innovation fund" that on the eve of an election dolled out $80 million to fund "a financial aid package to help reopen Ford's mothballed Essex engine plant in Windsor, Ont"...just curious how you square that with your Libertarian beliefs.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/09/03/windsorfordmoney.html

I can see why the hardcore rightys say Harper became "Liberal light", he stopped being a fiscal Conservative when he became PM.

How do i explain? Mostly with the words 'minority government' and the need for popularity. It's for the most part the politics game. Make people like you, and the sure fire way of making Canadians like you is to spend money, thanks mostly to Liberal rule over the past, I don't know... 50 years.

But other than that, an overall deafening of the economy, a climbing dollar, major repeated blows to the manufacturing sector, housing market crises, an increased awareness of environmental issues, a want to put Canada on the world stage, the list goes on. These are trying times.

In an ideal world, I'd be 100% libertarian, but it's not ideal and Canada had and has one of the world's largest social structures in place to protect what it feels like it needs to protect. Erase all of it, and I could give you an up-right, out of the book answer as to what I feel about bumps to save industry. But we're far from that and right now industry needs the bump and I'm okay with that.

Mulroney - recession

Harris - recession

Harper - whatever it is we're calling it now.

[Birdy]

There's also the PC view on crime. Heavier punishments with more jail time (ouch to canadian tax payers for that).

I agree with you that a lot of crime is poverty-related but it doesn't deter from the fact that it's still crime... does it? My dad recently defended a dude who killed his wife with a hammer and buried her body in a marsh about four kilometres from where I'm typing this right now. He got the sentence reduced to manslaughter, buddy was given 7 years, and after serving two is in a half-way house as we debate whether it's fair to tax payers to cover increased sentence periods. I'd prefer this guy still be in jail myself. He bludgeoned his wife to death with a hammer. Mind you, i'm all about rehabilitation and forgiveness, but two years? Puhleeze.

[mattm]

There's also the PC view on crime. Heavier punishments with more jail time (ouch to canadian tax payers for that).

I agree with you that a lot of crime is poverty-related but it doesn't deter from the fact that it's still crime... does it? My dad recently defended a dude who killed his wife with a hammer and buried her body in a marsh about four kilometres from where I'm typing this right now. He got the sentence reduced to manslaughter' date=' buddy was given 7 years, and after serving two is in a half-way house as we debate whether it's fair to tax payers to cover increased sentence periods. I'd prefer this guy still be in jail myself. He bludgeoned his wife to death with a hammer. Mind you, i'm all about rehabilitation and forgiveness, but two years? Puhleeze.[/quote']

Dude was a psychopath, I'm not talking about psychopaths, I'm talking about the people that break and enter or rob places to get money or that sell drugs for the same reason, or do drugs, etc, etc... Theft because you can't feed your kids or because you live in such abysmal conditions that you need drugs to make you feel better, now that's a different story.

Murder is murder and it's terrible and murderer's should be punished.

The Conservative Record

* Passed a law to crack down on street racing

* Cracked down on money laundering by organized crime and terrorists

* Invested $16.1 million to protect youth at risk

* Invested $64 million in a National Anti-Drug Strategy

* Established Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime

* Took action to arm border guards

* Invested $1.4 billion to strengthen our national security and further protect against the threat of terrorism

* Invested in 1,000 new RCMP personnel and are working with the provinces and municipalities to hire 2,500 more municipal police

* Introduced legislation to limit house arrest to ensure people who commit serious and violent crime will serve their time in jail instead of their living rooms

* Introduced legislation to require mandatory minimum sentences for gun crimes

* Introduced legislation that will result in tougher sentences for violent repeat offenders and establish reverse onus in bail hearings for firearm-related offenses

* Introduced new laws to protect children from sexual predators by increasing the age of protection from 14 to 16

* Introduced new laws to help police crack down on drug-impaired driving

There's the policies (from the website) and I agree with lots of them. It's the 3500 cops ($175,000,000/year with $50,000 salaries) that I don't necessarily agree with. It's also the things like the billions spent to help protect us from terrorists that I'm sorry, I just can't get paranoid enough about to justify (in my mind).

It's also what this article here talks about that pretty much sums up my dislike of harpers policies:

04.12.2007

Conservative crime bill misses the mark

OTTAWA – The Green Party of Canada is pointing to a new US study, Unlocking America, that suggests the measures proposed in Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s omnibus crime bill are bound to be ineffective and wasteful of taxpayers’ money.

“American criminal law policies have created an incarceration pandemic in the US and enormous costs for funding their criminal justice system,†said Green Party leader Elizabeth May. “This report clearly demonstrates how wrongheaded Harper’s heavy-handed approach is and confirms the importance of the Green commitment to tackling the root causes of crime.â€

The report from the JFA Institute says the total economic loss to victims of crime in 2002 was just over $15 billion, yet the US spends over $200 billion each year to fund its criminal justice system. Also noted is the lack of evidence that crime rates can be kept low by increasing incarceration. New York City, for example, has seen one of the largest drops in the crime rate while substantially reducing its inmate population.

“This report illustrates the vast disparity between the economic losses associated with crimes and the money spent to incarcerate offenders,†said Justice critic Jared Giesbrecht. “It also clearly demonstrates what criminal law scholars and criminologists have been saying for years—increased incarceration rates simply do not lead to reduced levels of crime. It is time Mr. Harper recognizes that the same ‘tough on crime’ strategies that are failing in the US are bound to fail in Canada.â€

Mr. Giesbrecht added that Mr. Harper’s omnibus crime bill seems to have been crafted in direct opposition to this report and other evidence-based research, as the bill would increase mandatory minimum sentences for several offences and is designed to increase the incarceration rates in Canada. Mandatory minimum sentences will apply to some drug crimes and the maximum sentence for the production of cannabis will be 14 years.

“It is unfortunate that no other opposition party is willing to challenge the Conservatives by pointing out these obvious flaws in their irresponsible criminal law policies,†said Mr. Giesbrecht. “Canadians are looking for effective and responsible strategies for tackling crime and the Green Party is prepared to offer a different strategy – one that will bring about real results and ensure the safety and security of our families.â€

Edited September 10, 2008 by Guest

[Birdy]

I don't like that article.

I think it a little shallow of the Green Party to call an approach to crime control wrongheaded based upon the difference between economic loss of the victim and how much a government forks out towards it's crime policy.

Say if my brother owned a convenience store, was held up at gunpoint, shot and robbed of $1200. The last thing on my mind would be the $1200. My brother was shot.

I'm not all for the Cons crime policy though. Is 'national security' the armed forces? If so, that's cool... i just wish they wouldn't call it 'national security' as I find it a little creepy. And the war on drugs approach isn't winning any favours in my books either, mostly in terms of marijuana users/growers. Going after these guys is a waste of time.

[mattm]

OTTAWA – The Green Party of Canada is pointing to a new US study, Unlocking America, that suggests the measures proposed in Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s omnibus crime bill are bound to be ineffective and wasteful of taxpayers’ money.

Not the green party, it's an article which uses arguments based on Unlocking America (the money comparison is one such argument)

The report from the JFA Institute says the total economic loss to victims of crime in 2002 was just over $15 billion, yet the US spends over $200 billion each year to fund its criminal justice system. Also noted is the lack of evidence that crime rates can be kept low by increasing incarceration. New York City, for example, has seen one of the largest drops in the crime rate while substantially reducing its inmate population.

Oh look, there's the reference to the JFA, also not the green party. They simply said harpers ideas were wrong based on findings such as those in this report.

Also, please stop bringing murder into this. You did that above, you did it again. How many stores get robbed? How many get robbed and someone actually gets hurt (let alone killed)? All it takes is to read the newspapers to know that the majority of the time no on is even injured during a robery.

I'm not all for the Cons crime policy though. Is 'national security' the armed forces? If so, that's cool... i just wish they wouldn't call it 'national security' as I find it a little creepy. And the war on drugs approach isn't winning any favours in my books either, mostly in terms of marijuana users/growers. Going after these guys is a waste of time.

Now you're talking and this is a huge issue for me.

Edited September 10, 2008 by Guest