From: Canada@nf.sympatico.ca   
      
   You probably all know the facts of the last few years --- when I say facts,   
   I mean those realities that are non-partisan, that are not opinion, but   
   actually have happened.  In fact, our government has made history, not once   
   but a number of times. Here are a couple facts...   
      
      
      
   ·      On December 12, 2006, the Federal Accountability Act was passed,   
   arguably the most vigorous attempt to legislate transparency in the federal   
   public service.   
      
      
      
   ·       In June 2010, TORONTO, Ontario, site of the G20 summit, was also the   
   site of the largest mass arrests in Canadian history.  By the end of the G20   
   summit, more than 1100 Canadians were arrested, and more than 800 of them   
   were never charged or booked.  Of the 300+ charges that were laid,   
   approximately 1/3 of them were dropped on August 23, 2010.  In the months   
   following, many more charges were dropped   
      
      
      
   ·       For the first time in history, government has been found in contempt   
   of parliament by the Speaker of the House as they refused to provide all   
   documents requested by the Commons Finance Committee on the cost of   
   corporate tax cuts and justice initiatives such as the expansion of prisons.   
   The government has refused to disclose the full price tags. This is the   
   third time in one year that the Speaker has found government in breach of   
   parliamentary privilege.  The other two breaches included failure to let MPs   
   see all documents pertaining to the alleged torture of Afghan detainees, and   
   an act by International Cooperation Minister Bev Oda who tried to mislead   
   MPs about the alteration of a document.   
      
   ·         Finally, for the first time in history, a government has moved me   
   to write not one, but two letters in two years - this one I'm sharing with   
   you, the first was shared with my MP.   
      
   With those facts as the foundation, I want to share some of my thoughts,   
   with the help of news stories over the last several months.   
      
      
      
   When the conservatives campaigned and subsequently tabled the Federal   
   Accountability Act, Mr. Harper was quoted as saying: "We must clean up   
   corruption and lift up the veils of secrecy that have allowed it to   
   flourish,"  and "replace the culture of entitlement with a culture of   
   accountability."  However, in his latest term, parliament has been prorogued   
   (suspended) twice in one year: December 2008 (two months after the last   
   election)  to avoid a "non-confidence" vote and again in December 2009 for   
   debatable reasons (government citing need to re-establish budget priorities,   
   opposition citing government's fear to answer questions about Canada being   
   complicit in the torture of Afghan detainees and the government's plan to   
   name 5 new senators and gain control of the Senate to increase chances of   
   conservative bills being passed) .   
      
      
      
   Through the Federal Accountability Act, a non-partisan position was   
   created - that of Parliamentary Budget Officer (BPO) who is an independent   
   officer of the Library of Parliament who reports to the Speakers of both   
   chambers.  It was the objective information from that Officer that provided   
   rationale for the conservatives being found in contempt of parliament.  The   
   government told Canadian tax payers that increasing prison capacity,   
   legislating mandatory minimum sentences, abolishing accelerated parole   
   release for non violent offenders, and building mega-prisons will cost them   
   $2 billion.  However, the BPO estimates that the "get tough on crime" bills   
   like "Truth in Sentencing Act"; "Abolition of Accelerated Parole" and Bill   
   C-39, will actually demand $5 billion from the Canadian tax payer.  The BPO   
   (Kevin Paige) noted that the government has not offered "sufficient fiscal   
   transparency" about the initiatives, resulting in the government being found   
   in contempt of parliament.   
      
      
      
   In my opinion, this strategy is a punishment before prevention strategy and   
   one that leaves me with the questions:  "Are Canadians willing to give up   
   the social programs (ex: medicare, childcare, education, etc) that will   
   inevitably be taxed for a crime strategy that is based on a false   
   presumption that prisons will reduce crime?   Are Canadians okay with paying   
   for legislation that was presented under the guise of a "conservative" cost   
   estimate that is less than ½ the truth?"   
      
      
      
   Two-thirds of Canadian respondents in an Angus Reid survey last summer   
   agreed that mandatory minimum sentences send out the message that lawmakers   
   are getting tough on crime and almost as many concurred that long prison   
   sentences are the most powerful way to reduce crime. Nearly half thought   
   crime rates had increased in the past five years.   
      
   HOWEVER, the reality is that prisons and mandatory minimums do not work in   
   the way that Canadians hope.  In fact, over the last 10 years, our crime   
   rate has decreased.   The volume of reported crimes fell 3% and the crime   
   severity index dipped 4% in 2009, according to Statistics Canada - that   
   without additional mandatory minimums, with accelerated parole and with no   
   more federal prisons.   But perceptions about criminal activity are not in   
   tune with reality and opinion polls repeatedly show that the public's fears   
   bear no relation to actual crime rates or the potential for victimization.   
      
      
      
   Such legislation mirrors what the United States did in the 1990's with mega   
   and privatized prisons.  Today, that strategy is recognized for what it   
   was..a fiscally irresponsible attempt to gain voter support through the   
   immediate response of punishment - without any consideration given to   
   prevention programs, or how prisons can aggravate rather than reduce risk to   
   repeat criminal behaviour.  In fact, Newt Gingrich, arguably the American   
   voice of the right-wing has said that the U.S. currently spends   
   US$68-billion on corrections - 300% more than 25 years ago - and the prison   
   population is growing at 13 times faster than the general population.  He   
   was quoted as saying, "Our prisons might be worth the current cost if the   
   recidivism rate were not so high but, according to the Bureau of Justice   
   Statistics, half of the prisoners released this year are expected to be back   
   in prison within three years. If your prison policies are failing half the   
   time, and we know there are more humane, effective alternatives, it is time   
   to fundamentally rethink how we treat and rehabilitate our prisoners".   
   With these facts in mind, Texas has instituted reforms that have   
   strengthened its probation system, reduced its prison population and freed   
   up money to be redirected into community treatment for the mentally ill and   
   low-level drug addicts. Since the reforms were launched in 2004, the crime   
   rate has dropped 10% to its lowest level since 1973.   
      
   So, do you still want to pay more money for prisons? Which would mean less   
   money for families, children, healthcare, etc?  With crime rates falling,   
   building new prisons is an expense this country doesn't need.   
      
   Please, first and foremost, get out and vote.  Next, please consider for   
   whom and for what kind of Canada you are voting.   
      
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)