Cialis - Buy Cialis Online

The figure to the right is from a recent study that shows trends of repeat offenders based on the age at which they were first convicted.

It is clear that those who get into trouble when they are young are much more likely to land in prison, over and over again. This is why it is so important to reach out to troubled youth BEFORE THEY GET IN TROUBLE. That is exactly what the Conservative government of Stephen Harper is doing.

The Hon. Stockwell Day, Minister of Public Safety, today issued the following statement about the rise in street gang violence in cities across Canada.

“The top priority of our Government is the protection and safety of Canadians. That is why in just over two years we have taken concrete action on several fronts to help cities across this country combat the serious threat posed by gang-related activities.

In January 2007, I announced $16.1 million in funding for initiatives that target youth gang prevention throughout our cities. Of this amount, $11.1 million was earmarked to create a Youth Gang Prevention Fund to help communities prevent youth crime with a focus on guns, gangs, and drugs.

Our Safer Communities strategy is implemented, in part, through effective law enforcement and by adding more police in our streets. Our Government has delivered on key platform commitments to provide financial resources to support the recruitment of 2,500 new front-line police officers and to fund an additional 1,000 RCMP personnel. (See CTV interview)
We are also giving our law enforcement agencies strong legislative tools, including the Tackling Violent Crime Act which came fully into force this past July. This bill introduces a reverse onus for bail which requires those accused of serious gun crimes to show why they should not be kept in jail while awaiting trial.

This law, which targets organized criminals and gangs, introduces tougher mandatory jail time for serious gun crimes.

We have also introduced legislation that will strengthen the Youth Criminal Justice Act to allow judges to include deterrence and denunciation as principles of sentencing. This will make it easier to detain youth who pose a risk to public safety before their trials, including those who steal cars.

Our message is clear: The Government of Canada will not stand by and allow our citizens to live in fear. This is the message I will convey in my keynote address to the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police 2008 Annual Conference next Monday in Montreal.”

Take Note: Crime facts and stats for Moncton-Riverview-Dieppe

The Honourable Stockwell Day, Minister of Public Safety today announced that the Government of Canada is launching a program to electronically monitor federal offenders.

“This initiative will better protect communities and provide an additional tool for the Correctional Service of Canada and police to prevent crime. Our Government is determined to ensure that those offenders who are released by the National Parole Board into the community are more effectively monitored“, said Minister Day. “We have listened to police and victims groups who have been requesting such a tool for years. Compelling offenders to abide by the conditions of their release is a key aspect of our reform of Canada’s prison system.“

The electronic monitoring system will function by having an offender wear an ankle bracelet with a Global Positioning System (GPS) receiver that reports its position to a monitoring network. Correctional Service Canada (CSC) will be alerted whenever an offender violates conditions such as curfews, residency or location restrictions. Following an alert, appropriate action will be taken and the police may be called as required.

It is anticipated that electronic monitoring will make our communities safer in the following three ways:

1. Quickly detecting any violations of certain types of release conditions;
2. Compelling offenders to abide by the terms of their release; and,
3. Increasing safety for parole officers conducting late night checks of offenders under imposed curfews.

CSC has entered into an agreement with the Nova Scotia government, which will provide support and advice based on their experience with this technology.

“In 2006, Nova Scotia became the first province in the country to use GPS technology to monitor offenders,” said Justice Minister and Attorney General Cecil Clarke. “We are pleased to share the knowledge and expertise we have gained over the past two years with the Government of Canada.”

“I am very pleased with the government’s announcement. Enhanced supervision through electronic monitoring will provide victims and the public greater protection,” added Steve Sullivan, Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime.

This initiative complements the Tackling Violent Crime Act which came into force earlier this year. This legislation provides for better monitoring of offenders who have been released into the community, but still require police supervision. It is long past time that victims and innocents were protected from criminals who breach conditions of their release.

There may have been extenuating circumstances that were not published, but on the surface, this report from B.C. is evidence that there is something seriously wrong with our Justice system:

“A judge in British Columbia has thrown out charges against a man stopped by police in B. C. last year with four garbage bags in the back seat full of marijuana plants, ruling that the smell of the drug is not enough evidence to justify a search of his car. Provincial court Judge Peder Gulbransen found police seriously violated the man’s constitutional rights. The judge ruled that the smell was evidence of a past offence of possessing marijuana, allowing the officer to check whether the driver was impaired by use of the drug, but did not give sufficient grounds to search the car without a warrant. On June 20, 2007, police in the Vancouver suburb of Delta stopped a vehicle driven by David Razah Hood as they prepared to execute a search warrant on a house believed used for growing marijuana. The officer who stopped the vehicle smelled marijuana and arrested Mr. Hood.”

Canadians are granted legal rights against unreasonable search and seizure by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In balance to that is the rule of probable cause which allows peace officers to investigate further (including a search) to make sure a crime has not been, or is about to be, committed. In most jurisdictions, reasonable suspicion is not acceptable grounds for making an arrest (in other words, something just doesn’t seem right so let’s arrest someone and find out).

In contrast, “probable cause” is a set of conditions under which an experienced police officer would reasonably conclude that there is a high probability of an offense. In this situation, police were in the process of executing a search warrant on an alleged grow-op. They stopped a car in the process of serving that warrant and smelled strong evidence of a substance consistent with what they were looking for. If the officer smelled it, he was close enough to see four large garbage bags in the back seat. Most experienced police officers would not have any trouble identifying the particularly pungent smell of pot. Even assuming that the bags were not the transparent recyclable kind, it would seem on the surface that this set of circumstances would lead an officer to conclude that there was a high probability of an offense.

We do not attempt to retry this case without all the details, but this is anecdotal evidence that our Justice system is unfairly skewed in favor of the criminal. We ask law enforcement to keep us safe and enforce the law, but then we tie their hands from performing the reasonable exercise of their duties. The strong smell of alcohol is usually grounds for a sobriety test on a driver, but four garbage bags with the reek of marijuana in the back seat of a car coming from an alleged grow-op is not grounds for a search. What’s next, blood smears on the back window and a blanket covering a large object in the back seat is not sufficient grounds to look for a body?

It’s about time that we put some faith in our policing agencies who face unprecedented scrutiny and criticism. Where they cross the line, they must be held to account; but it used to be that they were given the benefit of the doubt.

Since 9/11 life has no doubt been difficult for people of middle eastern origin. It is no proud moment to be the victim of racial profiling, yet we seem to have overcompensated in our efforts to accommodate certain groups.

The fact is that terrorism has been, and will remain, a serious threat in the foreseeable future. Terrorism has curtailed the civil liberties of all people in a way that would have been incomprehensible just a decade ago. Although all public transportation has been affected, air travel is particularly restrictive because of the vulnerability of hundreds of people in one place. Terrorism is especially evil because it kills and maims without prejudice. There are no rules of engagement, there are no “innocent civilians,” there is only mass murder and mayhem.

Because we justifiably demand to be protected from these threats, extraordinary security measures have come into effect. There are new passport requirements, xrays, sniffers, random searches and biometric identification. Carry-on luggage has been restricted and seemingly innocuous things like safety razors, deodorant and even bottled water have become prohibited substances. We used to take for granted the liberty to take a refreshing drink or freshen up after a long delayed flight - that is no longer our right.

The turning point that cost us all our liberties was when extremist Muslim terrorists crashed planes into the World Trade Towers, taking thousands of innocent lives. They were not attacking a foreign military, they were murdering 1000’s of mothers, fathers and children who opened their arms to people from all over the world who wanted to share in their prosperity. Now it seems that we have become the villains, and the terrorists the victims.

In a recent Toronto Star report, we find that Border officials are being subjected to sensitivity training so that they don’t offend Muslim sensitivities. This sounds good on the surface, but we have gone to such great lengths to accommodate one particular group that we have begun to discriminate against all the other people who have lost their travel liberties, but are not afforded the special considerations of this one group.

Perhaps the most disconcerting aspect of the Star story is the following paragraph: “Looking a person straight in the eye is standard procedure for a border guard on the hunt for suspicious behaviour, but in some cases, it can be considered disrespectful to make eye contact with a Muslim woman, she said.”

This new mandate for sensitivity comes on the heels of other senseless limitations at airports around the world. Recently in Britain, security services were restricted from walking bomb sniffing dogs in the vicinity of Muslims for fear of offending their religious sensitivities. How far will we go in tying the hands of our security services who are charged with protecting us?

In the Star article, the president of the Canadian Islamic Congress descries the fact that people entering Canada from countries known to sponsor terrorism are “subjected to greater scrutiny… We feel that this is a type of profiling, which must cease.” Mohamed Elmasry said. He seems to be implying that “profiling” is the same as discrimination; it is however the basic tool for filtering out those who are less likely to be suspect.

Grant a would-be terrorist the ability to: avoid extra scrutiny, allow them to conceal their identity and gender, make their country of origin irrelevant, insulate them from explosive sniffing dogs and you are inviting disaster. Now it is suggested that border guards avoid eye contact when questioning people coming into Canada! All of these special considerations are tantamount to reverse discrimination against all the other travelers who have lost significant personal freedoms because they must travel by air.

Sacrificing personal liberties for the privilege of air travel is a fact of life in the modern world. It is necessary because a group of people who fit a common “profile” chose to bring murder and mayhem to our shores. If they want to continue to travel by air, they will have to accommodate the restrictions which are in place just like the rest of us. To make a series of special exceptions because their sensitivities might be offended is simply reverse discrimination.

People of all races, ethnic origins and religious beliefs are welcome to our shores. They are not welcome however to bypass the same security measures that everyone else has to endure. Everyone else who finds the new security measures invasive and offensive simply does not travel that way any more; civil liberties and their restrictions should be the same for all who would share the bounty of Canada.

(Note: We intentionally used the photo above that the Star used to accompany their story. We mean only to reflect their intentions in choosing this illustration).

Bill C-484 (injuring or causing the death of an unborn child while committing an offence) is a Private Members’ Bill which has received widespread support in the house. Its passage was made even more urgent by recent news from Newfoundland of the heinous crime this bill is designed to prevent.

People across Canada were shocked to read reports like this one published in the Times & Transcript: “A mother of two whose dismembered body was found inside a suitcase in a St. John’s backyard was nine months pregnant at the time of her death, carrying the child of the man accused in her slaying, her father said Monday.’She was almost due,’ Peter Power, father of 29-year-old Amanda Power, said. ‘I don’t think there’s a worse hurt in the world that can compare with this.’”

Recently Liberal leader Stéphane Dion addressed this Bill in a news conference on his proposal for a “Gender Equality Commissioner.” He was quoted by the Canadian Press as saying that Bill C-484 “would reopen the abortion debate and vowed: ‘We will not allow that to happen’” Dion said.

This statement is purely political posturing and M. Dion should be publicly shamed for confusing this issue. The first reading of the Bill as proposed to the House [Section (7)] states very clearly that it is not designed to address abortion, but specifically a mother who has chosen to keep her child.

Intergovernmental Affairs Minister, Rona Ambrose, “accused Dion of politicizing a bill aimed at reducing violence against women.’He’s using this as a way to turn this into a partisan issue, to fearmonger women.’” she said. ” ‘This is the other side of the choice coin,’ she said. ‘When a woman does make a choice to have a child and she is attacked violently by someone . . . with the intention of killing her and her child, there should be repercussions for that.’ “

Almost one third of the LIBERAL caucus voted in favor of this Private Members’ Bill.

Only the uberpartisans like Stéphane Dion, Brian Murphy and Dominic LeBlanc voted against it. They did this in an appeal to an extreme activist base who would oppose a mother’s right to choose to protect her unborn child. They thrive on confusing the issues to garner political support, while attacking public support for measures that protect our most basic human rights! They are thoroughly confused on where they stand.

Brian Murphy’s colleague, Derek Lee, spoke IN SUPPORT of the Bill on behalf of the Liberal party at second reading. He said in part: “Bill C-484 attempts to address what is arguably a gap in our criminal law, and it has been a gap for some time…In layman’s terms, I ask myself the question, who could reasonably deny to a child prior to birth during an assault or another criminal attack on the mother, knowing that the mother is pregnant, the protection of the Criminal Code that that child deserves? I could not deny that. It sounds so very reasonable…I believe that we should act now to pass this law. I could not deny that protection and I do not believe my constituents would either. My friend has pointed out that according to some polling, 75% of Canadians agree some form of law would be appropriate. I am one of those 75%. I think my constituents would support me in that. I will be supporting this bill.”

Liberals like Brian Murphy and Stéphane Dion say they oppose this bill because of what “might happen” if it passes. At the same time they are turning a blind eye to what is happening when a mother who has chosen to keep her child is assaulted or murdered.

Liberals are just playing games with the most sacred right of any family. Why won’t they stand up for mothers who have their babies taken away?

NOTE: Ken Epp’s speech introducing this Bill is well worthwhile reading.

During the incarceration of Brenda Martin, we all heard a lot about the horrors of Mexican jails and the shortcomings of their justice system. In the case of this alleged drunk driver however, it may be better than he deserves.

According to a news report from the US, “A car driven by an alleged drunken driver plowed into a bicycle race along a highway near the U.S.-Mexico border Sunday, killing one cyclist and injuring 10 others. Juan Campos was apparently drunk and had fallen asleep at the wheel before crashing into the race in Monterrey, Mexico, police investigator Jose Alfredo Rodriguez said.”

Recently here in Canada, Toronto’s mayor made news by calling for an outright ban on handguns that have already been effectively banned for several decades. According to government figures, about 150 people die each year in Canada as a result of homicide with any type of firearm.

In contrast, MADD Canada estimates place Canadian deaths by impaired driving at almost 1500 each year (or nearly 10 times that of gun deaths!).

By sheer scale of volume, we should be working ten times as hard to ban people from drinking and driving as we are to ban guns. According to a recent Times & Transcript article, just a couple of beers are all that’s needed to put many people over the legal limit. Should we expect a beer control lobby to be demonstrating for banning beer any time soon? Not likely!

Why is his hypocrisy so socially acceptable? Because people love to ‘feed the beast’ of indulgence, and many cannot exercise self control. People will argue that the driver is at fault, not the beer can - but they fail to make that same connection with the illegal use firearms.

Premier Graham’s Liberals would no more propose a beer ban to limit drunk driving than they could keep their tax grabbing hands out of the honey pot of casino gambling. Tax revenue makes us “self-sufficient” - it’s bread and circuses at its best.

Federally, MP Brian Murphy has already demonstrated (1,2) where his sympathies lie in the battle against impaired driving. There seems to be no political will to battle this blight on society, except with the federal Conservatives who have introduced several tough measures to crack down on this killer of Canadians. Drinking and driving don’t mix, that’s just the law of nature.

Led by Beausejour MP Dominic LeBlanc, the Liberal Caucus scurried out of the Chamber just moments before House Speaker Peter Milliken called a vote on Government Motion No.3 - A message to the Senate on C-2, An Act to Amend the Criminal Code.

What does all this mean? Simply that Stéphane Dion would rather run away from responsibility than stand up for the safety of Canadians.

Smiling and waving to his colleagues, deputy leader Michael Ignatieff almost looked embarrassed as he hurried for the door. Even though the Liberals had supported Bill C-2 in the House, they refused to send a message to their Senate colleagues to quit stalling and pass the anti-crime legislation.

Bill C-2 is an amalgamation of the Conservatives “Getting Tough on Crime” policies and it has been around for a long time. The components of the current bill were formerly C-10 (minimum sentences for violent gun crimes), C-22 (age of consent), C-27 (dangerous offenders), C-32 (impaired driving) and C-35 (reverse onus).

These measures were designed to make sure that those who kill with guns go to jail (C-10), protect children under 16 from sexual predators (C-22), keep repeat violent offenders off the street (C-27), eliminate the easy walk for those who injure people while driving impaired (C-32) and make repeat offenders prove that they are no longer a menace to society (C-35). The earliest of these bills was introduced in May 2006, and all of those that made it out of Committee went to the Senate in May or June of 2007!

The Liberals held a record 14 Committee hearings into whether those who wreak havoc with guns on our streets should face mandatory jail time. They also kept the bill which would protect 14-15 year olds from sexual predators in Committee for 175 calendar days! Faced with this type of stonewalling, the Conservative government repackaged all 5 bills into one omnibus anti-crime bill and reintroduced it as their first order of business in the latest session.

When Prime Minister Harper gave the Throne Speech in the fall of 2007, he notified the House and Senate that their Tackling Violent Crime Act (C-2) would be a matter of confidence. By doing that he served notice that the Government wanted to get these measures passed so that Canadians would be better protected. Since most of the measures had been thoroughly debtated when they were seperate bills, C-2 actually passed the House fairly quickly. It was delivered to the Senate on November 29, 2007 - and it still languishes there today!

After the Liberals ran from their responsibility to stand up for Canadians’ safety, the motion actually passed 172-27. Outside, Liberal MP Ralph Goodale told the press, “We have no intention of allowing the Government to defeat itself on this vote. Their motion is a trick to provoke an artificial crisis, and we’re simply not going to play their game.” By saying this Mr. Goodale all but admitted that the Liberals would have voted AGAINST sending a message to the Senate that Canadians need and want these measures passed into law!

One has to wonder what Canadians are voting for when they vote Liberal. They stood up progress on anti-crime legislation as long as they could. They wouldn’t stand up for the increased security of honest, hard working Canadians. Then they refused to stand and be counted when Liberal Senators were stonewalling on measures they don’t even understand! They are empty of ideas, the campaign account is empty and today they left the seats empty where they were supposed to stand and represent their constituents. It’s time to CHANGE the balance of power in Parliament and elect a majority government that will protect Canadians and give them honest representation.

Last night on Mike Duffy Live, Liberal senator Sharon Carstairs “stopped by” to comment on Bill C-2, the Conservatives’ Tackling Violent Crime Act. Her comments were so outrageous that she single-handedly made the case for immediate Senate reform.

When she was asked about the Government’s demand to either pass the crime bill or face a confidence motion, Ms. Carstairs responded: “Awh, it’s just bullying by the Harper government. We should all be used to it as Canadians; but unfortunately for Mr. Harper, Senators can’t be bullied. There’s nothing he can do about us.”

The Liberal senators are holding these measures hostage for the second time. The bills incorporated into the Tackling Violent Crime Act were passed by the House last year and sent to the Senate where they languished for over 300 days. Those same bills were combined into Bill C-2 in this session and sent to the Senate 70 days ago. How exactly it is “bullying” to demand that the Liberals in the Senate take action on these measures to protect Canadians is beyond belief.

As Minister Stockwell Day stated on MDL last night, Bill C-2 includes important legislation designed to protect Canadians from serious repeat offenders, those who use guns to commit crime and keeping impaired drivers off our streets. There is also a provision to raise the age of consent for sexual activity from 14 to 16 years of age.

When asked if Liberals opposed the Tackling Violent Crime Act, Ms. Carstairs responded that they were not prepared to offer any amendments, but then implied that the Bill’s “reverse onus” provisions were essentially some sort of affirmative action to jail more Aboriginals. We find offensive the implication that Aboriginals are somehow less able to prove they deserve bail than others.

Senator Carstairs did not stop there however, she also singled out the age of consent provision. “I am concerned that young prostitutes will be driven underground by this legislation” she said. This shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what the legislation is all about.

“If they’re on the streets, social workers and street workers can find them. If it’s now a criminal activity for them to engage in sex and they go underground, they will never be found” Senator Carstairs went on to say. “I know that young fourteen year olds are sexually active (I wish they weren’t, but they are); and to gloss it all over, and criminalize their behaviour, is to me untenable.”

The ‘age of consent’ provisions of Bill C-2 have nothing to do with criminalizing a 14 year old! Had the Senator read even the Preamble, she would have known the goal of the bill is that “families should be able to raise their children without fear of sexual predators.”

The relevant text of the Bill goes on to say that: “when an accused is charged with an offence under [sections of the criminal code dealing with sexual assault] in respect of a complainant under the age of 16 years, it is not a defence that the complainant consented to the activity that forms the subject-matter of the charge.”

In such a case, the “complainant” would be the hypothetical 14 year old mentioned by the Senator. The “accused” would be someone typically much older who had exploited the child for sexual gratification, and then claimed that the 14 year old had “consented” to the activity. Such was the case when a man in his 40’s took a Moncton girl to a hotel room a couple of years ago.

What this bill is saying is that predators cannot even use “consent” as a defence unless the “complainant” is at least 16 years of age. There is nothing in the bill about jailing the 14 year old complainant for having sex.

It is irresponsible for an esteemed Senator to raise such a red herring. Furthermore it demonstrates a startling ignorance of both the context and intent of the bill she is opposing! Using playground taunts such as ‘you can’t touch us’ to justify Liberal inaction trivializes the importance of Canadians’ safety.

If this is an example of “the chamber of sober second thought,” we ought to think seriously about immediately bringing in the Senate reforms suggested by the Conservative government. Her statement that ‘there’s nothing Mr. Harper can do about us’ is tantamount to an admission that they are simply obstructing. It’s time for an unelected, unaccountable Senate to go; and it’s time for the Tackling Violent Crime Bill to be passed!

The Liberal talking points in response to questions about whether they will pass C-2 the “Tackling Violent Crime Act,” assert that the Conservatives are at fault for any delays in this legislation. They fault the PM for proroguing Parliament and say that he should have reintroduced the bills separately at the stage where they were in the last session.

Answer #1: The bills reintroduced in the omnibus “Tackling Violent Crime Act” include the amendments introduced at Committee stage in the last session. If the House has already approved these bills as presented, there is nothing to prohibit them from fast-tracking the current crime bill through the House and getting it back into the Senate. Any delays will be as a result of opposition stalling.

Answer #2: When Minister Rob Nicholson introduced the Bill he said, “Although we accommodate many of the opposition’s amendments, the bills were held up in opposition-controlled house committees or the Liberal majority in the Senate for a total of 976 days. I see no reason why this legislation should not receive Parliament’s approval without delay. If the Opposition allows our Throne Speech to pass, they cannot obstruct our core priorities, including this bill. And to hold them to account, we will make Bill C-2 a confidence bill.“

Answer #3: The following is a summary of the status of bills included in C-2, from the last session of Parliament:

1. C-10 (Minimum sentences for firearms offences) Passed the House - May 29, 2007 and delivered to the Senate
   
2. C-22 (Raising the age of consent) Passed the House - May 4, 2007 and delivered to the Senate
   
3. C-27 (Dangerous offender status) Passed second reading in the House - still in Committee on June 13, 2007
   
4. C-32 (Impaired driving) Passed the House Committee after second reading - June 20, 2007
   
5. C-35 (Reverse onus on some bail) Passed the House - June 5, 2007 and delivered to the Senate

Four of the five bills have already made it through the Committee stage where amendments are made. As the Minister said, there is no reason for prolonged debate (they’ve already been down that road). The Opposition should pass the legislation quickly and move it on to the Senate.

The Liberals hold a huge majority in the Senate. Once a bill gets to the upper house, the Conservatives are powerless to keep the momentum going. If the Senate tries to stall the bills like they did before, the public should hold Liberal leader Stéphane Dion accountable - even if it takes an election to do so!

The idea that the Liberals would use their majority in the Senate to obstruct progress on important legislation like this (just to hinder the Conservatives) is the height of partisanship and irresponsibility. These anti-crime measures have been reintroduced in one package to keep them in front of the Canadian people who should want to know when the Liberals will help to get them passed into law. It’s time for the Liberals to quit blowing smoke and get on with protecting Canadians.

Beginning with this post, we will begin a series of articles examining the positions taken by Moncton-Riverview-Dieppe MP, Brian Murphy, on legislation proposed in the last Parliamentary session. These are not “attack” pieces, but rather a disclosure of Mr. Murphy’s own statements in Committee and in the House. When you are in public life, you must expect to be accountable for your words; therefore we offer you the words of MP Murphy on bills proposed by the new Conservative government.

Brian Murphy speaks on Bail Reform reveals the following:

• He thinks that Conservatives are just wanna’-be tough guys who think criminals are roaming Canada’s streets ‘armed to the teeth.’
• He is convinced that the current system for keeping dangerous criminals off the streets is working just fine.
• He is worried that criminals’ charter rights might be compromised by making them prove they are not a danger to society, after multiple violent offences with a gun.
• He mistakes C-35 for a gun control bill, instead of a criminal control bill.

Don’t take our word for it; read Brian Murphy’s words for yourself. (Sources are listed at the bottom of the article should you wish to check them).