The Provinces Strike Back

In signalling that they won't foot the bill for the Tories' tough-on-crime agenda, Quebec and Ontario might have just erected the biggest hurdle for Stephen Harper's majority government.

The Conservative government's massive omnibus crime bill has raised the ire of the country's three two largest provinces, as Quebec and Ontario have intoned that they won't cover the costs associated with implementing the bill, paving the way for a good old fashioned constitutional showdown. (British Columbia has since signalled that it will support the bill. -ed.) "This could get awkward," observes the National Post's Scott Stinson in trying to parse just how this all might work out:

... How, exactly, could Quebec et al avoid paying these costs? A new Criminal Code of Canada is a new Criminal Code of Canada; it's not like they could opt to use the old one. At least one Bloc Québécois MP mused Tuesday that Quebec could refuse to enforce the legislation. The omnibus crime bill includes, for example, mandatory minimum sentences for certain drug crimes and sexual offences. The only way to avoid imposing them would be to not convict anyone of those crimes. Or, taking the fight a step further, the provincial ministry could order its Crowns to not seek those sentences, and have judges refuse to hand them out. We would be in uncharted waters at this point, I think. A federally dictated law that the province, possibly provinces, decline to enforce.

While it's not certain that the battle will ever quite get to that stage, the Conservatives were clearly not anticipating such robust opposition over this matter from the provinces, including one, Ontario, that was essential to the party getting its majority in May. But, as Stinson writes, "A constitutional crisis? Who said majority governments were boring?" It can be like Meech Lake all over again, except over sex offenders and pot growers instead of getting Quebec to sign off on the constitution. Little surprise that the same province is once again holding the feds' feet to the fire.

So far, the Tories have shown no signs of wanting to fork over any more money to the provinces to cover the bill. Justice Minister Rob Nicholson has said that all the money they'd need can be found in transfer payments, but as Le Devoir's Josee Boileau notes, such "[payments] to the provinces are intended for social services, understood in their broadest sense. Unless [the Tories] are intellectually dishonest, it clearly does not include prisons. Legally, Ottawa's position is untenable." (Well, we're more than open to the possibility of the Tories being intellectually dishonest on this account...) Boileau also makes the wry observation that maybe the money matter will finally get the Tories to reconsider some of their provisions in their bill. After all, they've been willfully deaf to any arguments against the bill based on reason or evidence; maybe the party that professes to "focus on the economy" can be convinced that its signature legislation is another billion-dollar boondoggle waiting to happen. Probably not, but here's to hopin.

In Le Soleil, Raymond Giroux relishes the moment when Quebec's Justice Minister Jean-Marc Fournier told Parliament's justice committee that "one day, someone discovered the Earth was round," suggesting that facts and evidence would one day triumph over the bill's ideological underpinnings. "Quebec boasts 40 years of scientific studies and statistics showing that imprisonment is not a means of rehabilitation," says Giroux. Fournier had gone to Ottawa to tell the Conservatives just that, and that their bill would have the effect of leading to more young people going to jail over and over again. The response from Tory MP Brian Jean, that young offenders need to spend time in prisons to scare them straight, is all too indicative of the party's mentality on law and order: Fear and intimidation trump compassion and reason. But will they trump the constitution?