Michael Spratt is again proving himself to be a one-dimensional partisan with a law degree and a lot of spin. He flat out lied about Peter Mackay before, and he's doing it again.
under the Harper government, the Department of Justice research budget has been slashed by almost $3 million, or 60 per cent.
Justice has an annual budget of $662 million for 2014-2015, with almost 4,600 employees, many of them lawyers.Source. Meaning that $3 Million is just a drop in the bucket for this department, and irrelevant research isn't a priority.
However, according to an internal government report, the Justice Department’s research budget was actually slashed because its findings “may run contrary to government direction” and “at times left the impression that research is undermining government decisions.”
Researchers were independently doing their own research without regard to what the government wanted researched, but just what they wanted to do themselves, then were publishing it for their own recognition. If that's what they want to do they can apply to work at a university, but if they're getting tax-payer money they should be researching what the government is actually planning on doing with the law. Anything else is a waste of resources.
A government that believes in fact-based legislation doesn’t starve itself of the funds required to find those facts.
Which is why they researchers should be researching the upcoming legislation, not anything they want. The report also said that "Research is not undertaken according to what the potential conclusions might be but rather to obtain information on current priorities".
In MacKay’s universe, words mean what he says they mean. Whistleblower Edger Schmidt — a former Department of Justice Lawyer — is suing the government over its rosy interpretation of the word “inconsistent”.
Apparently In Michael Spratt's Universe, Dates mean what he says they means seeing how MacKay was appointed to Justice in 2013 and Edgar (Does he have a fact checker?) Schmidt took his Charter issue to court in 2012.Source
In his blurb about mandatory minimum sentencing he used an ellipse to cover up what I wrote in bold, which may be the most important part of the recommendation:
as they do not allow a judge to make any exception in an appropriate case. However, this does not necessarily mean that a minimum sentence is unconstitutional. A mandatory minimum sentence may. . .
Immediately in the following paragraph the report said "Conversely, the current mandatory minimum sentence of four years in prison for criminal negligence causing death, where a firearm is used, was upheld by the Supreme Court in 2000". The report warned of the dangers of mandatory minimum sentencing, but just that it had to be done right. Not never.
His second report was even worse. Where he started with "Minimum sentences are not an effective sentencing tool:" (no ellipse), the actual report started with "There is some indication that minimum sentences are not an effective sentencing tool. Big difference, especially when his argument is about not hiding the truth. Spratt can't claim ignorance. He knows he's misrepresenting the reports. He just doesn't care.
Mandatory sentences, mandatory victim fines, retroactive changes to parole, ‘truth’ in sentencing reforms — they’ve all been declared unconstitutional.
As indicated above mandatory minimum sentences have long been upheld as constitutional if done right. A mandatory life sentence is constitutional as upheld by the courts, as it the 25 year minimum prison sentence for first degree murder.
I'm going to paraphrase Mr. Spratt to end this rant By ignoring the constitution, disregarding evidence and manipulating the reports, Spratt is the one doing the justice system — and Canadians — a disservice. He owes us an apology.