B.C. 'Holding Out' On Crime Bill Costs

First Posted: 04/ 4/2012 10:51 am Updated: 04/ 5/2012 5:26 am

Omnibus Crime Bill Bc
The B.C. NDP says it's time the Christy Clark government told British Columbians what it will cost to implement Bill C-10, the new federal omnibus crime bill. (Alamy/Getty)


The B.C. NDP says it's time the Christy Clark government told British Columbians what it will cost to implement Bill C-10, the new federal crime legislation.


The government has released more than 300 pages of internal documents about the new legislation.


There are many references to the potential cost of housing more prisoners for longer periods.


But virtually all figures have been deleted from the documents. One section, titled “Predicted costs to date,” is entirely blank.


NDP public safety critic Kathy Corrigan says it's ridiculous that taxpayers are being kept in the dark


“They have a right to know, they are the taxpayers,” Corrigan said.


“Even if they're estimates at this point, the B.C. government has been holding out for months and months on what the costs are going to be for taxpayers and it's time that they came clean.”


The government says sections were withheld because they include policy advice, cabinet confidences or information harmful to intergovernmental relations.


Attorney General Shirley Bond said her ministry is still working to come up with an accurate estimate of costs and it would be irresponsible to guess at the numbers.


Related on HuffPost:

Loading Slideshow...
  • 15 Things Critics Fear In The Tory Crime Bill

    Opposition parties, professionals working within the corrections and justice systems, the Canadian Bar Association and various other interest groups have raised wide-ranging concerns about the <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/news/omnibus-crime-bill" target="_hplink">omnibus crime bill</a>. Here is an overview of some of their objections. (CP/Alamy)

  • 15. Harsher Sentences For Young Offenders

    Changes to the Youth Criminal Justice Act will impose tougher sentences for violent and repeat young offenders, make it easier to keep such offenders in custody prior to trial and expand the definition of what is considered a "violent offence" to include "creating a substantial likelihood of causing bodily harm" rather than just causing, attempting to cause or threatening to cause bodily harm. The new legislation will also require the Crown to consider adult sentences for offenders convicted of "serious violent offences" and require judges to consider lifting the publication ban on names of offenders convicted of "violent offences" even when they have been given youth sentences. Some of the concerns around these provisions raised by some of the professionals who work with young offenders include: (Alamy)

  • 14. Young Offenders - Naming Names

    The publication of names of some young offenders will unjustly stigmatize them for life. Quebec has asked that provinces be allowed to opt out of this provision. (Getty)

  • 13. Young Offenders - Stiffer Sentences

    Stiffer, longer sentences will turn young offenders into hardened criminals and undermine any potential for rehabilitation. (Alamy)

  • 12. Young Offenders - Minorities Take The Brunt

    As with other parts of the crime bill, critics says harsher sentencing rules and increased emphasis on incarceration will <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/02/20/bill-c-10-omnibus-crime_n_1289536.html?ref=omnibus-crime-bill" target="_hplink">disproportionately affect aboriginal</a> and black Canadians, who are already over-represented in the criminal justice system. (Alamy)

  • 11. Young Offenders - Forget Rehabilitation

    The changes shift the emphasis of the Act from rehabilitation to "protection of society," which critics say will put the focus on punishing young offenders rather than steering them away from a life of crime. <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2011/11/22/crime-bill-quebec-canada_n_1107717.html?ref=omnibus-crime-bill" target="_hplink">Quebec, in particular, which prides itself on the success of the rehabilitative aspects of its youth justice system, has argued for stronger language prioritizing rehabilitation</a>. (Alamy)

  • 10. Fewer Conditional Sentences

    The legislation will eliminate conditional sentences, those served in the community or under house arrest, for a range of crimes, including sexual assault, manslaughter, arson, drug trafficking, kidnapping and fraud or theft over $5,000. It will also eliminate double credit for time already served. Critics say these changes will: (Getty)

  • 9. Fewer Conditional Sentences - Spike Costs

    Cost the federal and provincial justice and corrections systems millions of additional dollars a year. The parliamentary budget officer, <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/02/28/omnibus-crime-bill-costs-conditional-sentences_n_1306528.html?ref=omnibus-crime-bill" target="_hplink">Kevin Page, has estimated that the average cost per offender will rise from approximately $2,600 to $41,000</a> as a consequence of the elimination of conditional sentences. (Alamy)

  • 8. Fewer Conditional Sentences - More Trials And Hearings

    - Lead to more trials as those accused of crimes will be less likely to plead guilty if they know there is no chance they will get a conditional sentence and will be more likely to take their chances on a trial. Some have predicted this will lead to greater backlogs in an already backlogged court system. - Result in more parole hearings. Page's analysis predicted that with the increase in the number of incarcerations, there will be more offenders coming up for parole, which will increase costs for federal and provincial parole review boards. A single review by the Parole Board of Canada costs an estimated $4,289, Page estimated. (Alamy)

  • 7. Mandatory Minimums

    <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/02/22/bill-c-10-drugs-mandatory-minimums-omnibus_n_1292894.html?ref=omnibus-crime-bill" target="_hplink">By far the most criticized aspect of the bill is the introduction of mandatory jail sentences for certain crimes, including drug trafficking, sex crimes, child exploitation and some violent offences</a>. Opponents of the measures have argued that this type of sentencing has been tried in other jurisdictions, most notably in the U.S., and has created more problems than it has solved. Critics say that coupled with other changes in the bill, such as increases in the maximum sentences handed down to some drug offenders and sexual predators and elimination of conditional sentences in some cases, mandatory minimums will burden Canada's prison and court systems in ways that are unfeasible, untenable and have little benefit. In particular, they argue that mandatory minimum sentences will: (Jupiter Images)

  • 6. Mandatory Minimums - Higher Costs

    Increase the costs of prosecuting and incarcerating offenders and leave fewer funds for rehabilitation programs. (Alamy)

  • 5. Mandatory Minimums - Overcrowding

    Lead to overcrowding in prisons. (Alamy)

  • 4. Mandatory Minimums - Make Judges Less Powerful

    - Remove judges' discretion to tailor sentences to the specifics of a particular case and offender and force them to apply blanket, one-size-fits-all sentences regardless of circumstances - Limit the use of alternate sentencing measures of the type currently applied to aboriginal offenders. (Alamy)

  • 3. Mandatory Minimums - Over-Punish Drug Offenders

    <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/03/02/omnibus-crime-bill-pierre-claude-nolin_n_1316481.html?ref=omnibus-crime-bill" target="_hplink">Disproportionately punish small-time drug offenders and have limited effect on the drug producers, organized crime bosses and serious drug traffickers</a> the government says it wants to target. (Alamy)

  • 2. Mandatory Minimums - What's The Point?

    Have little rehabilitative effect on offenders and rather leave them more, not less, likely to re-offend. <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2011/11/27/tough-on-crime-conservatives-doubt-tough-sentences_n_1115012.html?ref=omnibus-crime-bill">Critics point to numerous studies showing harsher incarceration laws do not have a deterrent effect on criminals or lower crime rates</a>. (Alamy)

  • 1. Mandatory Minimums - What Charter?

    Violate provisions of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and open up the government to legal challenges on grounds that the sentencing rules violate certain rights that offenders have under the Charter, such as the right to liberty, the right not to be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment and the right to equal protection and benefit of the law. (Alamy)

FOLLOW HUFFPOST CANADA POLITICS

The B.C. NDP says it's time the Christy Clark government told British Columbians what it will cost to implement Bill C-10, the new federal crime legislation. The government ha...
The B.C. NDP says it's time the Christy Clark government told British Columbians what it will cost to implement Bill C-10, the new federal crime legislation. The government ha...
Filed by Michael Bolen  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 33
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
01:22 AM on 04/07/2012
Just after the election, a buddy of mine said: "What can they really do? Voters won't let them get away with too much" I guess he was wrong. Fascism has overtaken us. They are already smearing Bob Rae in TV commercials so they have big money behind them. No class whatsoever.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
piceaglauca
The picture says it all....
08:42 PM on 04/06/2012
Although I am not in favour ofo Christy Clark and her once in a life time government job soon to end the C-10 cost has nothing to do with her. It is a Federal initiative which each of the provinces have to bear. Given the policing of the RCMP and their 20 year new deal I'm sure more will go to that even though those guys have a hard time keeping out of trouble . I'm sure a provincial police force would have been more affective and the C-10 bill would have been more effectively policed. Since she won't probably form the next government the population should be demanding answers from the other parties as to how they will manage it.
02:45 PM on 04/06/2012
bigger sentences for pot growers than child abusers . thats the country i want to live in .
wake up canada ,
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
07:23 PM on 04/04/2012
They're trying to build a prison system for you and me to live in.

Why are today's breed of PC's so intent to follow all the mistakes they made down south and American politicians are now realizing were disastrous? We do not need to privatize our prisons for profit and incarcerate 10%+ of our citizens to impact crime statistics. We are in many ways seeing a decrease of crime. The leading authorities agree that tougher sentences and mandatory minimums do nothing to reduce crime. Incarcerating our youth and mentally ill and addicts does nothing to rehabilitate them and reduce recidivism. We need addiction treatment, mental health programs, youth diversion programs and a strong social safety net, and a reduction in the number of people living in poverty. In the long run it is also cheaper to the taxpayers and helps keep ex-offenders employable and paying into the system instead of draining it. That will help more then "getting tough on crime" after the fact. Canada has for so long seemed inoculated against the same tough on crime, low on results thinking of the U.S. We have gone from being leaders to being myopic. Canada's justice system has valued the idea of rehabilitation of offenders, not just handing down their punishment, and what is best for society as a whole.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
piceaglauca
The picture says it all....
08:46 PM on 04/06/2012
There are no prisons being built or planned. The CBSA is building holding cells/detention units for anticipated illegal immigrants which in BC will probably fill a stadium.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ProgressiveCDN
A Progressive Moderate
04:07 PM on 04/04/2012
This looks like Clarke's missed oppurtunity. If I were in BC, despite being a Liberal, I would support the NDP. This is attrocious! These BC Liberals could have capitalised on the fact that Bill C-10 is going to destroy their budget and blamed the feds, but instead they're doing the same kind of cover-up that we're seeing across the country. Only Quebec is actually standing up to the Feds on this issue and the long-gun registry... Why aren't the more progressive provinces decrying this new legislation... and WHY in the world would the BC Liberals choose to cover this up when they can deflect all the blame to the feds??
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
4evercanadian
Still my guitar gently weeps
10:50 PM on 04/04/2012
Because the BC "Liberals" are actually neo-cons. That's why Harper's former handler is now Christie's.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ProgressiveCDN
A Progressive Moderate
11:30 AM on 04/05/2012
Apparently.
BritishColumbian
American/Canadian liberal
09:05 AM on 04/05/2012
Christie Clarke sits on the fence on every issue and hasn't the backbone to stand up to the federal gov't. Keep in mind that the BC liberals are a coalition of the Social Credit Party (conservatives) and the Liberal Party which has now disintegrated.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ProgressiveCDN
A Progressive Moderate
11:34 AM on 04/05/2012
I see... that's really a shame.
I feel like the Liberals really need to return to their progressive roots, both provincial and federally
photo
Another Pesky Canadian
Talk - action = 0
03:48 PM on 04/04/2012
The figures missing are cost estimates in dollars to build and run the additional prison spaces.

NOT measurable is the true cost to our society of following this course, although we can get some idea by seeing how negatively it is affecting the U.S.

Harper thinks he can keep from wearing the ultimate shame of this by downloading it onto the Provinces, but he is wrong.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
piceaglauca
The picture says it all....
08:49 PM on 04/06/2012
What is your source for additional prison spaces? Do you mean existing? The budget states quite clearly that there is no new prisons being built. Please explain. As for downloading provincial criminals should be provincial costs.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Steve Lives
The Venus Project ... look it up
03:28 PM on 04/04/2012
We are insane. Seriously. We could end the need for prisons in a very short time if we wanted to. We could end the need for politicians, police, the military, and all the rest of the apparatus that prevents us from living in a sane society.
Want to know why its blank? Because they know if they put some numbers in there, in a short time what ever they write in there will be seriously under what it will really cost us. What it will cost you and I. Not some well paid politician, but the people struggling to make ends meet. The police state will break us.
photo
BCSLAVE
Got a key?
09:57 PM on 04/05/2012
Just like it did Hitler's Nazis and the Soviet Union afterward - it caused them to spend money on an expensive gimmick that provided neither security nor safety. The authorities ultimately became the monster and killed their own innocent citizens.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
All Seeing Guy
Center of the storm
01:17 PM on 04/04/2012
Reform party fiscal conservatism - dump all problems on the provinces!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
opprobrious
More speech. Less Flagging.
03:28 PM on 04/04/2012
Hey but it looks good on paper. Just ask Paul Martin.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ProgressiveCDN
A Progressive Moderate
04:19 PM on 04/04/2012
What BS. What Paul Martin did was actually bold and actually created a surplus and kept jobs (both private and public) growing at a reasonable pace.

What Harper has done is purely ideological and a complete waste of money while slashing public jobs... From the F-35s to the healthcare transfers to this garbage Bill C-10: All ideologically driven and all insanely expensive!
01:09 PM on 04/04/2012
What's irresponsible is keeping these numbers from citizens. Cabinet confidence is the new National Security. People have the right to know so they can be supportive or not even if it is an estimate.

Did you know citizens in other countries get to be part of the budget making process. Engaging the citizens is the way democracy should be. Withholding information from citizens is anti democratic.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
samseed
We're here for a good time, not a long time
12:56 PM on 04/04/2012
So the omnibus bill has been debated for years in its separate sections. And yet, there is no good estimate on what it will cost, even after it has been implemented? Harper and his cabinet of goofs must go down.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
piceaglauca
The picture says it all....
08:54 PM on 04/06/2012
Well, those subs Jean Chretien bought in 1996-97 are for the most part still in dry dock. The first firing of a torpedo was only recent.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
TwoZeroOZ
12:37 PM on 04/04/2012
"critics says harsher sentencing rules and increased emphasis on incarceration will disproportionately affect aboriginal and black Canadians"
What?? How?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
William Muller
01:06 PM on 04/04/2012
The read this how race is definitely a deciding factor in sentencing someone:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/british-columbia/man-who-punched-bus-driver-spared-jail-time-due-to-his-native-ancestry/article2390728/
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
TwoZeroOZ
01:49 PM on 04/04/2012
That does't explain how 'harsher sentencing rules' have any role in that effect what-so-ever
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
opprobrious
More speech. Less Flagging.
03:31 PM on 04/04/2012
It probably will but that's a subset of the problem. The real problem is that this policy will cost every Canadian dearly.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
TwoZeroOZ
10:38 AM on 04/05/2012
Indeed.

But to say that a rule applied uniformly across every citizen will "effect minorities more" is lunacy.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Phatbiker
Dentalfloss tycoon
12:31 PM on 04/04/2012
Want new schools or hospitals, forget it!! That money will be needed for the court system and new prisons, thanks to bill C-10. We have just embarked on a US style "war on drugs" and we know how well it worked down there.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Skookum1
truth can't be bought, but lies sure can be sold..
01:24 PM on 04/04/2012
there's one city somewhere in the US that had to close its municipal buildings as well as several schools just to maintain its policing budget........police budgets go up, at everyone else's expense etc.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
piceaglauca
The picture says it all....
08:59 PM on 04/06/2012
The budget states that no new prisons will be built. And I quote "Action Plans 2012".

"Mar 29, 2012... to use existing facilities. The Government has not built a single new prison since 2006 and has no intention of building any new prisons."

Quit spreading lies and misinformation. Get your facts right.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Phatbiker
Dentalfloss tycoon
12:57 AM on 04/07/2012
It will be the provinces that will have to build the new prisons, not the feds, they only build penitentiaries (for 2 years+ sentences). BC's jails will get swamped with small time pot growers etc. and the BC taxpayers will have to pay for it. Don't drink the Harper Kool-aid.