News Release from North Vancouver MP Andrew Saxton's office:
Today marks the end of the spring sitting of Parliament. Despite being faced with a minority parliament, Canada’s Conservative Government has successfully implemented an ambitious governing agenda, responding to the real priorities of Canadians.
“I am glad that the opposition put aside partisan interests and supported our Economic Action Plan”, said Andrew Saxton, MP for North Vancouver. “I look forward to spending more time in our community this summer and meeting with the constituents of North Vancouver.”
In response to the global recession, Canada’s Economic Action Plan - the largest economic recovery program in Canadian history - was introduced on the second day of the session. Canada’s Economic Action Plan:
· lowers taxes for Canadian individuals, families and businesses
· creates jobs through stimulus spending and public works projects
· improves access to credit and strengthens the financial system
· provides help for Canadians who have been hardest hit by the global recession.
During the first few months of this year, the Lower Mainland experienced an unprecedented level of criminal activity. The Conservative Government acted quickly by introducing:
· mandatory minimum sentences for gang and drug-related crimes
· tougher sentences for repeat and violent offenders
· an end to 2 for 1 sentencing credit, and the elimination of the “faint hope” clause
· stricter rules for conditional sentencing and house arrest.
The Harper Government took action to cut through political and bureaucratic red-tape to implement Canada’s Economic Action Plan. A few days ago, the Prime Minister announced that 80% of this year’s commitment under Canada’s Economic Action Plan is already being implemented. North Vancouver is seeing the results of this plan and jobs are being created and secured for our community. Some local projects already benefitting from federal support include:
· A rehabilitation of the structure of the Ironworkers Memorial Bridge
· The continued operation of the North Shore Youth Safe House
· Infrastructure improvement projects along the North Shore waterfront, totaling $225m of investments
· Upgrades to Capilano Road to improve traffic flow
· Modernization of the Capilano Salmon Hatchery
Friday, June 19, 2009
Saxton Touts Conservative Accomplishments in this Parliament
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
36 opinions/comments:
To misquote Sam Clemens, "Lies, Damned Lies, and politicians' claims of accomplishment."
"Provides help for Canadians who have been hardest hit by the global recession" is pure nonsense. The people hardest hit - those in the lowest income brackets - have seen no real help, just promises, and vague claims that Employment Insurance will be "reformed".
Tough on crime? Nonsense again. None of these things will have the slightest impact on criminal activity, largely because criminals don't spend a whole lot of time expecting to be caught.
"80% of this year’s commitment under Canada’s Economic Action Plan is already being implemented" Again, everything that I've read suggests that most of this plan is still imaginary.
And hmmm... no mention of Harper's ongoing battle to keep Abousfian Abdelrazik from returning home from Sudan. Is Saxton proud that the Canadian courts need to force the government to to live up to meeting basic human rights obligations?
Dear Barry Rueger,
As part of the family of Samuel Clemens, I take offense to your comment regarding him. May I quote another of his excellent quotes, "The Law is an ass."
Barry - since when do we publish press releases here?
@ Wendy - actually, I had forgotten that the phrase originated with Disraeli.
According to Wikipedia: "Lies, damned lies, and statistics" is part of a phrase attributed to Benjamin Disraeli and popularised in the United States by Mark Twain: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."
Wendy, please explain to me what there was in the first post to take offense over? Since when is 'quoting' an humorist offensive?
Barry Reuger - you're free to make the argument that being tough on crime is useless, and coddling criminals is the way to go.
However, calling the Tories claim to be tough on crime "nonsense" requires a bit of explanation.
Got a press release that will stimulate some discussion? That's what we are here for isn't it?
Saxton forgot the part where they voted for seal fur on the Olympic uniforms.... Sorry, I meant to say 'gave assent' rather than voted. Enormous difference.
Quote:
"Tough on crime? Nonsense again. None of these things will have the slightest impact on criminal activity, largely because criminals don't spend a whole lot of time expecting to be caught."
Wondering what expert information leads you to this conclusion?
Dr. Darryl Plecas, widely respected B.C. criminologist has produced numerous fact and stat based reports on criminal motivation and behaviour. One of his public speaking events addrressed the exact question of criminals anticipating capture and incarceration.
According to Dr. Plecas it is a concious decision to become a career criminal instead of some other trade choice. Implicit in that decision is the likelihood of spending time in prison. Dr. Plecas says that career criminals are prepared to accept sentences of less than 5 years as part of the hazards of their field. However, he also says that sentences exceeding 5 years are too much job downside and that longer sentences are, in fact, a deterrent to the choice or ongoing engagement of career criminal activity.
Good for the Cons to encourage longer sentences.
And another criminologist - SFU's Dr. Ray Corrado - will tell you he can walk into a room full of 5 year old children and tell you who will become the criminals over the next 15 to 20 years.
Longer sentences will not deter their development. So we can chose to spend money on more prisons and longer sentences or we can address some of the root causes of criminal behaviour; in utero diseases like fetal alcohol syndrome; child poverty, mental illness and our substandard education system.
oops - meant choose not chose
With some exceptions, the Tories proposed changes are not about longer prison sentences, but ensuring that there is SOME prison sentence at all.
Quote:
"Longer sentences will not deter their development. So we can chose to spend money on more prisons and longer sentences or we can address some of the root causes of criminal behaviour..."
Respectfully suggest that "or" should be "and". We don't have to make a choice at the exclusion of either of the options. Both are helpful to society.
I would love to know how the learned professor would design an experiment that would allow him to look in that classroom of kids and determine who the future criminals are.
I'm talking about a procedure that passes both mathematical and ethical vigor.
Mathematically if everyone here were to put the names of 100 kids on a dartboard and randomly through darts at the list, 5% of us would look like prophets.
(From a mathematical point of view it's little different from choosing 6 winning numbers out of 49...)
Similarly if you DID have such a screening procedure that you believed reliably selected future criminals how could it be ethical not to intervene with these kids to avoid that outcome?
I _do_ know something about experimental design and I have a difficult time envisioning a controlled experiment that both survived peer review and any kind of rational ethical review.
I dunno - what am I missing?
I believe he worked the problem backwards. He used the pool of known criminals, inmates and convicted offenders, and determined the common elements of their individual backgrounds.
This revealed factors both environmental and genetic that are likely contributors to criminality. Does any one of these factors cause criminal behaviour? NO but as an individual experiences or shares more of these factors the likelihood of criminality increases. Therefore he can look at a group of 5 year olds and quite quickly figure out who will be the criminals of that generation. And he will be statistically accurate even if he is wrong about an individual.
How to intervene in the life of a child who is among this group raises a host of questions around ethics and the legal rights of the child and their parent(s).
The trouble statistically with working backwards from a known pool is that the zillions of factors are interconnected and correctly identifying the cause and effect and which is which is often problematical.
As for the legal rights of parent and child, if the relationship between criminality and factor X were that clear you bet society would intervene - as society does in many situations where Children and Family Services DOES intervene.
The world is not that clear which is why you don't see this sort of thing.
Don't see a mention of the Maritime Museum being brought to North Vancouver.
Isn't this one of the oldest long-standing federal iniatives?
What is the status Andrew?
I agree i think we should just get rid of prison, cause sending people there doesn't effect the crime rate anyways. I have no problem going to the families of victims of violent crime and saying sorry, our bad this guy had a tough childhood growing up and since there isn't anything we can do about it there isn't really much point in keeping them in prison. I know your Kid will never walk again and can't form coherent sentences cause he got run over by a street racer but it wasn't really his fault the guy liked to play racing video games and played with toy cars when he was a kid.
10:02 thanks for raising the level of debate. Your contribution is greatly appreciated.
I think the point he was trying to make was that sentencing of criminals should not just be about how to deter crime. It's called a justice system for a reason. It is only fair that someone should take responsibility for their decisions and actions, we as a society should stand up and say that certain actions are not appropriate and carry consequences, its not about the bottom line of deterrents its about attaining some form of justice for victims and their families
On the other hand why not "contract out" our high risk and repeat offender prisons?
They've become bureaucratic, dangerous, frightfully expensive, rife with prisoner's "unions" and, in the event on an escape, put our citizens at risk.
There are numerous developing nations that would love to acquire some western hard currency in exchange for housing and policing foreign prisoners.
Think about it. We could fly them to jail on secure military transports, incarcerate prisoners at less than half our current costs, no danger to prison staff, no danger to the public from escapees, we take foreign aid money and get something for our $$.
What a win!
C'mon Cons let's get serious and start negotiations.
Australia!
1:57 Fair comment but a different argument. The previous suggestion is that longer sentences will reduce crime by deterring a criminal who is afraid of the potential for incarceration.
I suggest that it is far more desireable to reduce crime by eliminating the underlying causes of criminal behaviour. I do subscribe to the notion that most criminals believe they will not be caught so punishment is not a perceived risk.
Your argument for justice for the victims of crime is valid and I would prefer fewer victims needing justice.
As posted earlier, I still can't figure out why you propose that we must pick one or the other?
Obviously we all would prefer less crime and therefore less victims of crime. If the underlying causes (that you espouse) of choosing a life of crime can be reduced - then great, let's pursue that.
On the other hand, if that attempt at reduction isn't as successful as hoped then Dr. Plecas' views (that longer sentences are a deterrent to opting for a career as a criminal) should also be impemented for dual reasons. Firstly, as a deterrent and secondly in the name of justice.
1) Imprisoning someone is hugely expensive and in terms of bang for your buck, by far and away the worst form of crime prevention. It was never a case of having a cake in eating it too, but in tough economic times this should be perfectly clear.
2) Longer sentences do not deter gang bangers or junkies in anyway. The research on this is clear. With regard to petty criminals and to a lesser degree gang bangers, it is the likelihood of arrest and not the severity of punishment that deters criminals.
3) Conservatives are using a dragnet approach. If it "career criminals" that they are after, then they should go after career criminals and career criminals alone. Mandatory minimums, especially for drug crimes, radically curtail social mobility and encourages social dislocation. Once you get a critical mass of ex cons in area the prospect of taking back that neighborhood from the gangs is virtually nil.
4) Crime is not a problem in Canada. The Conservatives --- and Liberals -- are promising to build a bridge when there is no body of water. Crime is down and becoming more concentrated among those on the margins of society. If one is not involved in the drug trade or prostitution, the chances of one being a victim of a violent crime are very slight indeed. The one problem area is that drug related crimes is going through the roof. It is daft think that this can be solved by declaring a war on drugs. Legalization, decriminalization and regulation are the answer.
We could also cut the murder rate to zero by legalizing killing.
1. Cdn. cost to imprison someone is $259.05 per day. About half the hourly rate of a plumber.
Setting aside the obvious danger to citizens, an unimprisioned repeat or dangerous criminal can easily generate a far greater cost to society.
For both public safety and consequence for criminal behaviour, it is well worth the cost to incarcerate.
2. The reality is clear. With petty criminals arrest means nothing if nothing unpleasant (like prison) happens to them as a result of conviction in court.
3. Without mandatory minimum sentences, which by definintion means removal from the criminal's usual area of operations, then criminal activity with continue and grow and the chances of taking back the neighbourhood from the criminal element is virtually nil.
4. Crime is a problem in Canada specifically to the victims of crime. Just ask them.
1) You must be talking about Joe the Plummer. I must admit I am surprised. The Conservatives have borrowed a lot of Republican talking points over the years, but I did not think the Conservatives would borrow him from the Republicans.
Anyway, dividing $95,000 by 365 is neat why of is disguising the real amount. You must be in marketing. For only $2, less the cup of coffee you can ....
Of course, $95,000 is not chump change and seeing as how a doubling the prison population by introducing mandatory minimums for drug related crime will not reduce the crime rate at all, it represents a monumental waste of money. In one decade the prison costs in the US rose by 1,350 percent!
William Rehnquist
These mandatory minimum sentences are perhaps a good example of the law of unintended consequences. There is a respectable body of opinion which believes that these mandatory minimums impose unduly harsh punishment for first-time offenders -- particularly for 'mules' who played only a minor role in a drug distribution scheme. Be that as it may, the mandatory minimums have also led to an inordinate increase in the federal prison population and will require huge expenditures to build new prison space...
Mandatory minimums... are frequently the result of floor amendments to demonstrate emphatically that legislators want to 'get tough on crime.' Just as frequently they do not involve any careful consideration of the effect they might have on the sentencing guidelines as a whole. Indeed, it seems to me that one of the best arguments against any more mandatory minimums, and perhaps against some of those that we already have, is that they frustrate the careful calibration of sentences, from one end of the spectrum to the other, which the sentencing guidelines were intended to accomplish.
2. Petty crime in Vancouver is largely associated with drug trade. Junkies steal whatever they can get a hold of so that they can feed their habits. If you think the crack head I saw inspecting grains of salt left behind by a salt truck on the off hand chance one of them might be crack, is going to think twice because the Stephen Harper is getting tough on crime, you are on crack.
As trails in Europe have shown, heroin maintenance holds out the most promise of reducing drug related property crime. Those in such programs are much less likely to commit crimes of all kinds. No longer having to bag steal or prostitute themselves in order to gather up enough money to feed their addiction, enrolled addicts are much more likely to start contributing to society again. Employment rates more than double and here is the kicker, heroin usage drops even though it is freely at their disposal! And little wonder. Living out on the streets and having to perform any number of illegal activities to feed their addiction, often deepens the severity of that addiction.
John Reynolds, remember him, is supporter of heroin maintenance.
3. Here is what 2.3 million people in prision gets. 2006 stats: Detroit murder rate 47.3, Baltimore 43.3, New Orleans 37.6, Newark 37.4, St Louis 37.2, Oakland 36.4, Washington 29.3, Cincinnati 28.8, Philly 27.2, Buffalo 26.4, KC 25, Atlanta 22.6, Memphis 21.6, Miami 19.6, Houston 18.2, Milwaukee 17.7, Indianapolis 17.5, Pittsburgh 17.3, Cleveland 16.6, Chicago 16.4, Phoenix 15.4, Minneapolis 15.2, Dallas 15, Nashville 14.3, Columbus 14.2, Jacksonville 13.8, Tulsa 13.7, Mobile 13.6, Boston 13.3, Stockton 13.3, LA 12.4, Charlotte 11.9, Las Vegas 11.6, Toledo 11.6, SF 11.5, Fresno 11.2, Oklahoma City 10.3.
4) Climate change is myth. Just ask the friends of Science. Creationism and Darwinian theory have equal explanatory value. Just ask Gary Goodyear. “Any country with Canada’s insecure smugness and resentment can be dangerous.” Just ask Stephen Harper.
Of course, locking up more and more gang members is no way to weaken the reach of gangs. The individuals might suffer but the organizations thrive. Indeed, plenty of gangs started as prison gangs (e.g., the Red Command and the PCC in Brazil and the Aryan Brotherhood in the US) and other gangs spread as result (e.g., the Crips and Bloods in the US).
"Crime is a problem in Canada specifically to the victims of crime. Just ask them."
I see
Anyone who looses their job is an economist.
Anyone who is a victim of crime is criminologist
Anyone who gets caught in the rain is a climatologist
Koby, let's put the heroin maintenance house next to your place. There won't be any ramification to your neighbourhood.
Yeah right.
Leaving repeat and dangerous offenders on the street to save money? Maybe in your world, not mine.
"Crime is not a problem in Canada" What an absurd statement.
"Anyone who is a victim of crime is criminologist" A stab at sarcasm that results in an additional level of absurdity.
Such wobbly views are almost as concerning as unincarcerated criminals.
If you actually bothered to read something about the subject instead talking out your ass, you would know 68% of Swiss voters voted in referendum to make heroin maintenance program permanent. The reason is simple. The results were too difficult to ignore. Street crime was way down as a result of the program.
"Crime is not a problem in Canada" What an absurd statement.
Ha ha. Do honestly believe your tut tuts are going to convince me not call you on your idiocy? Tell me of the following what slogan are the Conservatives going to one with in the next election.
A) Scared Angry uninformed?, vote Conservative
B) Conservative party of Canada a celebration of Ignorance
C) "The facts don't matter."
D) I am Angry, therefore I am
Now even though it was Conservative candidate, Rondo Thomas, who uttered the "the facts don't matter", I still prefer A). For me it captures the Conservatives get dumb when comes to crime approach.
Well Koby, the usual retreat of the hysterical liberal - a bunch of unrelated goofy name calling.
In reply to the semi-sane part of your rant. I have been to Switzerland and I have experienced sitting in the public parks with the strung out junkies. I have also be to the Netherlands, who are now tightening drug laws as their decades old liberal approach to drugs has attracted every doper that could rustle up a bus ticket to their cities with the predictable expense and petty crime fallout.
Au contrar, Kobster, I'm not afraid. I'm fed up with liberal sops whose oh so cerebral superior tut-tutting leads to a reduced quality of life for the majority.
Back to what Andrew 'touts'.
I'd like to see a list of what he is going to do for North Vancouver/
Incidentally Koby, you don't "loose" a job. You lose it.
Don't bother Koby, he's too busy getting stoned to spell.
Post a Comment