Tag Archives: CPC

Attawapiskat_2

Looks like Pierre won’t be answering any of our questions.

———- Forwarded message ———-
From:  <pierre.poilievre@parl.gc.ca>
Date: Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 9:38 AM
Subject: RE: Your correspondence – Constituent feedback
To

NP,

Thank you for your message.

I have noted your comments, and appreciate your sharing your point of
view with me.

Sincerely,

Pierre Poilievre, M.P. Nepean-Carleton

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure
and Communities

LP

See Original Letter

Advertisements

Bill C-10 – 2011_5

Hi Pierre,
These were not comments they are questions. Please take a moment to answer my questions.
Thank you
K
—————————–NO REPLY—————————–
Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 11:20 AM, wrote:

Hi Pierre,

Please answer my questions.
Thank you,
K
—————————–NO REPLY—————————–
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 9:23 AM,  wrote:

Hi Pierre,

To re-state my questions:

 As outlined in our original letter, there were four key questions:

1.   In the context of other issues which are clearly becoming more prevalent, or where we are making few if any positive gains, such as homelessness or child poverty, why has the issue of “crime reform” taken centre stage as a funding priority?

2.   Can you identify how we are investing substantively in the areas which are actually documented to decrease the crime rate? 

3.  Are you able to identify the estimated and real costs of the investments required in implementing this crime reform package?  

4. Are you able to provide an analysis of the expected return on investment?

 Please let us know your responses to the above.

 


I am expecting a response on the questions above, which have not been answered in any of your correspondence. 

Regards, 

KD


Bill C-10 – 2011_4

Pierre’s Reply? Seems that this may be the end of the road for the Bill C-10 discussion.  Since his reply to our questions is that he will note them?

K,

Thank you for taking the time to write back.

I have noted your additional comments.

Sincerely,

Pierre Poilievre, M.P. Nepean-Carleton

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities

LP

————————————————————————

Please read our Reply

See Original Letter


Attawapiskat

Learn about Attawapiskat and other First Nations Issues

On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 11:15 AM, NP wrote:

Dear Pierre :
I sit with my three boys, planning the eldest’s upcoming sixth birthday.  We’re talking about the clown who’s coming to put on a show, the birthday cake I’m making in the shape of the Millenium Falcon, all the presents he’ll receive.  We look out the window at the hockey rink in the backyard being readied for when the cold weather comes.  We live down the road from an almost new school.  To me, in Canada, all children should have the chance to have these experiences : safe housing, special events to look forward to, access to recreational activities and a decent place to learn.  How do we explain to our children that this isn’t the case? That in fact, there are such fundamental differences that it suggests a systemic discrimination?
We’ve heard a lot of rhetoric in the last few weeks concerning funding to Aboriginal communities, and I’d like to take this opportunity to ask some questions.
You had indicated a number of years ago, with respect to Aboriginal communities, that we need to engender the values of hard work, independence, and self-reliance.   I would argue that this is true for any community, but we ask these communities, in particular, to succeed in the face of overwhelming obstacles.  We invested $274,000 in public toilet facilities for the G8, and yet many people living in Attawapiskat today don’t have toilet facilities in their homes.  We ask their children to learn in portables for years while the government invested $9.75 million in the University of Waterloo G8Centre expansion.
How is a taxpayer to understand the relative importance you place on funding priorities? Can you provide your constituents with clarity on what the investment in the G8 provided us with in the way of return on investment, similar to the statements your party has recently made with respect to the return on investment on reserves?

From another perspective, $133 million was provided for 308 MPs office budgets last year – this is in contrast to the $17.6 million dollars in federal funds that was provided to Attawapiskat in 2010/11, with an identified registered population of 1,768 (according to government websites).  This is an investment of just under $10,000 per person – to put this in context, the Province of Ontario allocated $10,730 in education funding per non-native pupil in the 2010/11 fiscal year – and yet, this $10,000 per person is intended to provide not just for education, but also healthcare, social services, housing, economic development and so forth.  If roughly half of the population in Attawapiskat is school-aged, even with the additional $4.4 million provided by the province, it’s not difficult (as a taxpayer) to begin to understand the tremendous challenges that this community is facing, particularly given the state of the current infrastructure to provide education, health and social services.  All of us would agree that we want our governments and leadership – be they federal, provincial, municipal, or band councils – to be responsible and accountable for how money is spent and allocated in serving their communities.
Your party has instituted a third party manager in Attawapiskat – what are your expectations of what this will achieve?  Similarly, what are your thoughts on what measures need to be in place to monitor MP spending?  Do you think the Indian Act prescribing Ministerial approval for capital expenditures on reserves creates another level of red tape for these communities to create and maintain their infrastructure?

The June 2011 report from the Auditor General states that :
In our view, many of the problems facing First Nations go deeper than the existing programs’ lack of efficiency and effectiveness. We believe that structural impediments severely limit the delivery of public services to First Nations communities and hinder improvements in living conditions on reserves. We have identified four such impediments:

  • lack of clarity about service levels,
  • lack of a legislative base,
  • lack of an appropriate funding mechanism, and
  • lack of organizations to support local service delivery.

The report focuses on the many recommendations from past Auditor reports which have not been acted on in a satisfactory manner by various federal government departments.  These issues are not new, not created by any single party – but they are problems with solutions, and your party could be the one to make meaningful progress in addressing these problems in collaboration with the communities in question. Are you able to outline your party’s action plan to correct these findings and act on the AG recommendations?  

There is no question that it is time for a fundamental paradigm shift in the relationship between Aboriginal peoples and the Canadian government – requiring new ways of thinking, true collaboration, accountability on all sides, and authentic relationship building.

Regards and thank you in advance for your time,

 NP

Bill C-10 – 2011_3

Dear Pierre – thank you for your response – please see my responses in italics below: 

Thank you for sharing your views on Bill C-10.

I would like to emphasize that the cost of crime on society far exceeds the cost of fighting crime. Here is a link to an earlier report which references the cost of crime in some detail:  http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/pi/rs/rep-rap/2011/rr10_5/rr10_5.pdf

Thank you for this link.  I think we would all agree that this is the case – the real question is related to what, specifically, actually combats crime rates.

And for your information, here is a link to a Statscan report on crime statistics: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2011001/article/11523/hl-fs-eng.htm

Note the following bullets:

•In contrast to most types of crime, increases were reported in the rates of child pornography offences (+36%), firearm offences (+11%), criminal harassment (+5%), and sexual assault (+5%).

•Drug offences also increased in 2010 (+10%), driven primarily by a higher number of cannabis offences. The overall increase continues the upward trend that began in the early 1990s.

Thank you for identifying additional highlights from the Statistics Canada report we cited in our original letter.  As you know, in contrast to the bullets you have identified, the overarching theme of the report was that crime rates and the crime severity index are continuing their downward trend – specifically: that the 2010 crime rate is at its lowest level since the early 1970s, and the CSI is at its lowest point since it first became available in 1998.  The Violent Crime Severity Index is down 6% in 2010 – the fourth consecutive annual decline. Interestingly, particularly given the context of the crime bill legislation in relation to youth, the number of youths accused of a broad range of crimes was down in 2010.  The homicide rate fell 10%, and is at its lowest rate since the mid 1960s.

You may also be interested to know that a story on CBC’s The National criticizing Bill C-10 praised Drug Treatment Courts as an effective measure to prevent crime.  The reporter failed to mention that there are currently six Drug Treatment Courts acrossCanada, and that Bill C-10 provides for their expanded use.

Yes, this is an excellent initiative that is smart to support.  Our original letter related to the idea that more innovative approaches (such as this) are needed to truly prevent crime from happening and ensure people are given the skills they need.

Here are the elements of the plan:

·       impose new and higher mandatory minimum penalties for sexual offences against children and create two new offences that are aimed at conduct that could facilitate these heinous crimes;

·       target organized crime by imposing tougher penalties for the production and possession of illicit drugs for the purpose of trafficking;

·       protect the public by ensuring that violent and repeat young offenders are held accountable by the youth criminal justice system;

·       eliminate conditional sentences, often referred to as house arrest, for serious and violent offences;

·       enshrine in law a victim’s participation in parole hearings;

·       extend the ineligibility periods for applications for a record suspension (currently called a “pardon”) from three to five years for summary conviction offences and from five to 10 years for indictable offences;

·       add additional criteria that the Minister of Public Safety could consider when deciding whether or not to allow the transfer of a Canadian offender back toCanadato serve their sentence;

·       allow victims of terrorism to sue perpetrators and supporters of terrorism, including listed foreign states, for loss or damage that occurred as a result of an act of terrorism committed anywhere in the world; and,

·       authorize immigration officers to refuse work permits to vulnerable foreign nationals when it is determined that they are at risk of humiliating and degrading treatment, including sexual exploitation.

The predominant theme of this plan focuses on what we should do with people once they have offended – the reality is that it would be far more cost-effective and safer for communities if we made targeted investments in initiatives that are proven to prevent people from committing crimes  in the first place and, in cases where people have committed crimes, to ensure the right efforts are made to promote the rehabilitation of the person, and ensure communities are safer. This is what concerns us as taxpayers – are we investing taxpayer dollars wisely? 

Our Conservative government will continue working to deliver safer streets and better justice for law-abiding families and the victims of crime.

As outlined in our original letter, there were four key questions:

1.   In the context of other issues which are clearly becoming more prevalent, or where we are making few if any positive gains, such as homelessness or child poverty, why has the issue of “crime reform” taken centre stage as a funding priority?

2.   Can you identify how we are investing substantively in the areas which are actually documented to decrease the crime rate?
3.  Are you able to identify the estimated and real costs of the investments required in implementing this crime reform package?  

4. Are you able to provide an analysis of the expected return on investment?

 

Please let us know your responses to the above.

 Best Regards,

KD and NP

**Pierre’s Reply**

 

 

See Original Letter


Bill C-10 – 2011_2

K,

Thank you for sharing your views on Bill C-10.

I would like to emphasize that the cost of crime on society far exceeds the cost of fighting crime. Here is a link to an earlier report which references the cost of crime in some detail:  http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/pi/rs/rep-rap/2011/rr10_5/rr10_5.pdf

And for your information, here is a link to a Statscan report on crime statistics: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2011001/article/11523/hl-fs-eng.htm

Note the following bullets:

•In contrast to most types of crime, increases were reported in the rates of child pornography offences (+36%), firearm offences (+11%), criminal harassment (+5%), and sexual assault (+5%).

•Drug offences also increased in 2010 (+10%), driven primarily by a higher number of cannabis offences. The overall increase continues the upward trend that began in the early 1990s.

You may also be interested to know that a story on CBC’s The National criticizing Bill C-10 praised Drug Treatment Courts as an effective measure to prevent crime.  The reporter failed to mention that there are currently six Drug Treatment Courts acrossCanada, and that Bill C-10 provides for their expanded use.

Here are the elements of the plan:

  • impose new and higher mandatory minimum penalties for sexual offences against children and create two new offences that are aimed at conduct that could facilitate these heinous crimes;
  • target organized crime by imposing tougher penalties for the production and possession of illicit drugs for the purpose of trafficking;
  • protect the public by ensuring that violent and repeat young offenders are held accountable by the youth criminal justice system;
  • eliminate conditional sentences, often referred to as house arrest, for serious and violent offences;
  • enshrine in law a victim’s participation in parole hearings;
  • extend the ineligibility periods for applications for a record suspension (currently called a “pardon”) from three to five years for summary conviction offences and from five to 10 years for indictable offences;
  • add additional criteria that the Minister of Public Safety could consider when deciding whether or not to allow the transfer of a Canadian offender back toCanadato serve their sentence;
  • allow victims of terrorism to sue perpetrators and supporters of terrorism, including listed foreign states, for loss or damage that occurred as a result of an act of terrorism committed anywhere in the world; and,
  • authorize immigration officers to refuse work permits to vulnerable foreign nationals when it is determined that they are at risk of humiliating and degrading treatment, including sexual exploitation.

Our Conservative government will continue working to deliver safer streets and better justice for law-abiding families and the victims of crime.

Sincerely,

Pierre Poilievre, M.P. Nepean-Carleton

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities

LP

Our Reply… on it’s way


Bill C-10

Image from CHRIS SO/TORONTO STAR

Hello Pierre,

I am writing to you today because of questions I have relating to the crime reform package currently before Parliament.

First: Statistics Canada stated in July 2011 that the national crime rate is at its lowest level since 1973, and the Crime Severity Index is falling. In the context of other issues which are clearly becoming more prevalent, or where we are making few if any positive gains, such as homelessness or child poverty, why has the issue of “crime reform” taken centre stage as a funding priority?

Second: Based on the practical experience of similiar laws in the US, we know that this type of change and funding investment is unlikely (at best) to actually make the streets safer. In fact, Texas legislators recently advised Canada to rethink this crime reform strategy. The billions of taxpayer dollars that will be invested in jails and services to support this unproven strategy could instead be used to provide targeted funding towards strategies that we know demonstrate positive impact on community safety and crime reduction (such as increasing services for the mentally ill, rehabilitation programs in jails, reinstating the defunct national housing program and dealing with the growing problem of child poverty). Can you identify how we are investing substantively in the areas which are actually documented to decrease the crime rate?

Third: To date, it has been difficult to understand what the real cost will be in implementing this crime reform package, and this is of particular concern given that spending on corrections has increased by 86% since the Conservatives came to power. Are you able to identify the estimated and real costs of the investments required in implementing this crime reform package? Are you able to provide an analysis of the expected return on investment?

“Law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and when they fail in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress.” Martin Luther King Jr.

Regards,
KD

Read Pierre’s Reply