Today's news has been filled with the open dispute between the Conservative government and the Canadian Bar Association.
The CBA has passed a number of resolutions deploring the Conservatives' justice initiatives. The Minister of Justice has, in effect, deplored those deploring resolutions.
So there we are -- everyone glowering at each other albeit with a sense of holding the moral high ground.
Perhaps another approach makes sense?
First, let's recognize that the Conservative government is implementing a platform it campaigned on. The plans for criminal justice were hardly hidden during the election.
Second, let's recognize the Conservative position on criminal justice is a logically consistent view aimed at reducing crime as its goal.
Both these points are important.
The first cannot be argued -- it's just true (trust me, I ran against the Conservative platform and it was quite clear). The second point, however, while true does not justify the Conservative position. Yes the Conservative position is logically consistent but that doesn't make it correct.
And that's where we need to engage the government.
Just saying "you're wrong" is pointless. In fact, it's counterproductive; no the better approach is to consider each piece of crime legislation specifically and to propose amendments that would make it work better. And to back up the amendments with hard evidence as to why, say, giving judges the right to go beyond a mandatory sentence on a specific case is necessary.
The Conservative government says it wants to have an efficient and just criminal system; proposals aimed at getting that type of system have a chance of success, especially if made in good faith and not for scoring debating points.
Talking to the government makes sense -- shouting at it is pointless.
5 comments:
Remember the Canada Post situation? The NDP proposed many amendments to try and make the legislation reasonable rather than a blatant show of force for union busting. The Conservatives didn't listen or care. They don't have to care for another four years. With a good enough multi-year multi-million dollar ad campaign, they may not need to care even then.
Morton, I think the biggest problem is that the federal Conservatives are rolling out crime legislation like this in an omnibus bill instead of individually. Thus undercutting debate and the ability of the rest of Canadians to oppose the bill.
Also, their provincial representatives are proposing legislation contrary to Canadian values, I think.
For example, who would have thought a year ago that today us Ontario liberals would be in a serious competition for the province's leadership with a man whose platform looks to implement chain gangs and cut green-sector funding?
Hudak also reneged on signing a petition promising to defund abortion services and looks to publish the names of registered sex-offenders once in office.
If anything, the ones' that should change their tone and language in the debate on Crime Legislation are the conservatives themselves, that is change the language of the legislation itself.
If access to justice is now unaffordable for most Canadians, perhaps its time we regulate the legal industry.
Well, legal service are highly regulated already -- of course, one can argue regulated badly
The legal industry is regulated by lawyers and they've priced themselves out of the average Canadian's ability to pay. The irony is that while lawyers have priced themselves out of the average person's ability to pay, the CBA and various law societies call on government to increase legal aid spending. That's just laughable.
Having worked in the legal field for thirty years, I know the corporatization of law firms is a large part of why the fees have been driven up. The courts are now flooded with pro-se cases because most people can't afford it. Simple solution: regulate fees via legislation. I wonder how the CBA or the Law Society of Upper Canada would view an attempt by government to regulate how much they can charge. It's long overdue - the Law Society basically killed any opportunity for access to justice in an affordable way by demanding to regulate the paralegal industry - the fox is guarding the hen house, isn't it?
Post a Comment