Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday.

- Sure, it may not be a surprise that the Star is calling for a G20 inquiry:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Premier Dalton McGuinty have refused to hold the independent inquiry that could get beyond the stories, subpoena officials — both police and their political bosses — and find out how things got so out of hand.

Queen’s Park and Ottawa are hoping to ignore the calls for a public inquiry until they go away. The citizens’ report shows, yet again, why that should not be allowed to happen.

- But can there be much doubt that one is sorely needed when even the National Post joins in?

The new report from the CCLA and NUPGE, entitled Breach of the Peace, claims that rather than a few dozen officers removing their name bars to prevent being identified while using force to subdue protestors, the total was actually in the hundreds. Who told them to employ this trick? Was it senior officers on the ground or did the call come from higher up; Toronto’s chief of police, senior Mounties or perhaps even politicians in the Ontario or federal government?

The report argues, with justification, that overall police strategy could not have been devised by frontline officers. So who told them to round up protestors, some in advance of the protestors even committing any acts of violence or vandalism? Who ordered officers to hold protestors and journalists (including two working for this newspaper) for hours — occasionally in inhumane conditions and without medical treatment?
...
If nothing else, a public inquiry might — given the proper mandate — help police and security bureaucrats devise better methods to distinguish between real threats to public safety and garden-variety demonstrators at future summits. In an ideal world, police would be able to learn such lessons based on their own internal investigations. But so far, all signs from the Toronto police are that the organization is more concerned with circling the wagons and protecting its own than getting to the truth of what happened last June.

No doubt, many activists would use such an inquiry as a platform to criticize the police in scathing terms. But holding our police to account is an exercise in which all Canadians have an interest — especially those conservatives who embrace the principles of limited government and civil liberties. It is on this basis that we endorse the call for a G20 public inquiry.

- But while it's well worth some time and resources to ensure an accountable and effective justice system, the Globe and Mail rightly notes that the return on investment isn't there when it comes to the Cons' dumb on crime posturing:

Canadians don’t trust the courts to get it right on crime. Many would like a tougher approach. But they also don’t see crime or justice as a spending priority. Perhaps this explains the Conservative government’s silence on the costs of their law-and-order agenda.

Since 1994, the Focus Canada poll done by Environics has measured Canadian attitudes toward government spending. In 2010, justice was seen as the second last of 21 priorities, a sharp drop from 15th in 2008. Only 24 per cent said more money should be spent on the justice system. That was the lowest figure recorded since 1994, when just 20 per cent wanted more spent. Getting tough is one thing, paying for it another.
...
But even if the public would like tougher sentences, there appears to be no wish to pay a tab in the billions each year (in combined federal and provincial costs). The federal corrections budget alone is set to rise by $861-million, or 36 per cent, by 2012-13 over 2009-10. The provincial costs will probably rise by at least that much, because of federal sentencing changes.

Ottawa’s position is either that Canadians want a get-tough approach at any cost, or that they aren’t entitled to know what the cost will be. The government should reveal all the costs of the changes, and allow for a reasoned debate on where this country’s real spending needs lie.

- Finally, the NDP's motion on a Senate referendum is well worth some further discussion. But for now, it's particularly worth noting the Cons' actions in switching an opposition day without warning to limit debate on the issue.

Presumably part of the lesson they've taken from their past prorogation fiascos is that they can only afford to delay for so long in order to prevent a countermovement from building. But it still looks highly irresponsible for them to start raising similar issues of silencing opposition voices in Parliament with an election campaign looming in the near future - and if the NDP can direct the result toward a need for better representation in both chambers, then an election on democracy could produce some highly positive results.