Comments on: On the lam, and on the dole

By: Bill Poser

Bill Poser — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 03:58:39 +0000

One thing to note is that all the government is saying is that provincial social assistance staff will not be checking for warrants on every applicant. That doesn’t mean that they can’t check if they are suspicious. In any case, the police have access to the SA files and can check for warrants. Instead of checking every SA applicant, they can look for anybody that interests them with an outstanding warrant.

If the police locate someone with an outstanding non-returnable warrant, they can arrest that person and hold him or her briefly while they notify the issuing jurisdiction. That jurisdiction may decide to pay for returning the suspect. If not, if the person is someone considered dangerous or undesirable by BC, BC can return the person to the issuing jurisdiction at its own expense. BC doesn’t have the money to do this routinely, but it can be done in serious cases, and some money has been raised privately for this purpose. (The Vancouver police department is big on this idea.) I don’t think it happens often, if at all, that a jurisdiction issues a non-returnable warrant for a murder suspect. Non-returnable warrants are usually issued for lesser offences.

Anyhow, I’m not trying to defend the BC government (of which I am, kn general, quite critical), so much as to point out that this is less an example of them being idiots and more an example of them making a gesture that they know will have little effect since they are aware that a real solution to the problem is more complicated and will require agreement among the provinces, the territories, and the federal government. It’s the sort of thing that probably needs to be taken up at a First Minister’s meeting.

By: A.W.

A.W. — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 19:10:11 +0000

well, obviously it is not ideal, but maybe they are going to do this: they are going to ask them, under threat of perjury if they have outstanding warrants and then if for any reason the government figures out that they are lying, they bust their behinds. not the best enforcement method, but it will deter at least some criminals, who might read that and assume that they are more vigilant than they are.

Weak, yes, but if we assume that is what they really mean not quite so nuts.

And mind you, i am not asserting that this is a good idea. but i am just saying, maybe we are reading that a little too narrowly.

By: Jim Collins

Jim Collins — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 13:24:43 +0000

Bill,
No disrespect to your post, but, I hurt myself laughing at the irony of it. This is the same thing that Obama is trying to pull in the US with the health care reform legislation. He stated that illegal immigrants would not be covered, but, you were not allowed to check immigration status before providing treatment. I am not referring to emergency treatment, but common regular medical treatment. In effect this provides coverage by omission.

So what happens in Canada when they catch a murderer who doesn’t have a return deposit stamp on him?

By: Bill Poser

Bill Poser — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 22:24:13 +0000

This is indeed a weird policy, but it isn’t the straightforward example of liberal lunacy many people are making it out to be. For one thing, the BC “Liberal Party” is actually a right-wing party. (History in brief: BC was ruled for 40 years by a peculiar local right-wing populist party called “Social Credit”. In 1991 the Socreds lost to the social democratic party, the NDP, and burst into flames. At that time, the Liberals were middle-of-the-road. A new right-wing party called the Reform Party arose, which at the national level eventually absorbed the old Progressive Conservative Party and became the current Conservative Party. Within BC, the Liberal Party acquired just about everything to the left of the NDP, including most of the Reformers, and thereby shifted considerably to the right.) Secondly, the reason that the social assistance workers will not be checking for warrants is probably that this is intended basically as a gesture because there are unresolved issues as to how to handle extra-provincial warrants. In Canada, warrants other than those under the Immigration Act are issued by the provinces. Some Canada-wide warrants are designated “returnable”, meaning that the issuing province or territory agrees to pay the cost of returning the suspect to the issuing jurisdiction. Most, however, are “non-returnable”, meaning that the issuer does not agree to pay costs. If BC arrests someone on a non-returnable warrant issued outside of BC, BC can only get rid of the person if it assumes the cost of transportation. There is no funding for doing this routinely. A large percentage of those wanted are in no position to pay the costs themselves even if they are willing to return to face the charges. Furthermore, the BC courts some time ago invalidated a regulation that required those desiring social assistance to clear warrants by pleading guilty. So, suppose that the welfare folks check the database and discover that their client has an outstanding non-returnable warrant from outside of BC. The client is not willing or able to return to face the charges, as will be the case much of the time. Then BC either has to pay to send this person back to the issuing jurisdiction or we end up with an indigent person, and quite possibly family, ineligible for welfare, which poses both problems of his or her legal rights and those of his or her dependents, but with the person motivated to beg or support himself by crime, likely to end up on the streets (which is not good for the rest of us either), unable to take care of kids, etc..

This isn’t to say that there isn’t a way to deal with these people, but we need an overall solution to the handling of extra-provincial warrants, one that funds transportation in an equitable manner and that perhaps has provisions for resolving lesser offences without returning the suspect to the original jurisdiction. (Although offences such as murder and sexual assault are among the indictable offences, so are many lesser offences. An “indictable offence” is the approximate Canadian equivalent of a “felony”.)