4 political legacies of the omnibus crime bill

The Harper government nicknamed C-10 "the safe streets and communities act."

Butthe road to passage of the omnibus crime legislationwas a long and winding one that strayed far from safepolitical ground.

A final vote,expected Monday around8 p.m. ET,and then royal assent come after months of bruising partisan combat, leaving political scars to last long after new measures become law.

Here's a look at four legacies of C-10.

Hurry-up offence

Years of minority government thwartedthe Conservatives' desire to bring in new, tough crime measures.Much of what Liberals or New Democrats would swallow was bundled together with other measures they couldn't stomach.

By the time the Conservatives were preparing for last spring'selection, the list of unpassed justicemeasurestook up an entire page in theirplatform book. The pitch?"AStephen Harper-led majority Government will bundle these bills into comprehensive legislation, and pass them within the new Parliament's first 100 sitting days."

From the start, Government House Leader Peter Van Loan didn't hesitate to reach for his procedural hammer at any sign of opposition tactics to delay or split the bill inthe new majority Parliament.

As the bill reaches its final vote, the government now has moved time allocation motions three times in the Commons and a fourthduring the justice committee's review.

March 12, Van Loan noted in the House last week, will be the 94th sitting day.

As controversial as it is for the government to limit debate oncomplicated legislation, it appearsthe bill could not have metthe Tories'deadline without time allocation.

Opposition filibuster tactics,such as a marathon speech from the NDP's Jack Harris,were evidenteven during last week's final debate to concur with amendmentsportrayed by the government as having "all-party"support.

Tacticspreviously seen as a government's last resort have becomethe first line of defence.

Provincial pushback

Premier Dalton McGuinty believes Ontario's pricetag for C-10could add up to $1 billion in new prison costs alone. Canada's largest provincewants to erase a $16 billion deficit from its books.

Quebec Premier Jean Charest shares the concerns about costs (estimated at $500 million for Quebec), but doesn't stop there. His justice minister, Jean-Marc Fournier, made two trips to Ottawa to fight the bill last November on both fiscal andpolicy grounds. Quebec has hinted it may refuse to pay for or enforceC-10's provisions.

Newfoundland,Nova Scotia, P.E.I. and Nunavut alsoexpressed concern over the bill's costs.

Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, New Brunswick and Saskatchewan have been more supportive of the bill's goals but will stillhave to deal withhigherjail costs.

Courts too will face additional case loads, if plea bargains and other deals become more rare in the face of mandatory minimum sentences.In B.C., four former attorneys general have spoken out against the provisions for a justicesystemchoked by clogged courtrooms.

If provinces fail to enforce or fund the changes they oppose, or if some are ill-equipped to manage the additional demands, will different tiers of justice emerge across provincialjurisdictions?

Court challenge

Even as C-10 becomes law, the debate over mandatory minimum sentences continues in the courts.

An Ontario Superior Courtjudge in Februaryrefused toapply amandatory minimum sentence for a weapons offence. An appeal is expected to go all the way to the Supreme Court for final judgment.

Legal experts have speculated this could be only the first instance of a judge refusing to apply a minimum standardset by politicians.

If the Supreme Court is called on for a final verdict on the fairness and legality of mandatory minimum sentencing guidelines,C-10's provisions will betested.

Opposition MPs spoke in the Commons last weekof theirreservationsaboutpassing measures that maybe found unconstitutional.

The 'Cotler' amendments

Former Liberal justice minister Irwin Cotler proposed a whole list of amendments to C-10 during the justice committee's review. Butsix amendments in particular tell a partisan tale "as arrogant as it is shocking", to quote Cotler himself during the concurrence debate on March 9.

Cotlerhas fought for anew lawto supportvictims of terrorism since he was justice minister. The Harper government shared this goal, andC-10 included what Cotler wanted.

Nevertheless,he recommended amendments, includingsix modestly-worded tweaks to strengthenthe ability of victimsto sue foreign statesthatsupportedor directly committedterrorist acts.

Thejustice committee's reviewof C-10last fall was acrimonious, colored with a partisan taint.

Cotler was in the middle ofanother battle with the Conservativesat the time,over the use of pamphlets and phone callsto damage his reputation in his Montreal riding and further the chances of a Tory rival.

During the committee's clause-by-clause review, Conservative MPs voted against everychange proposed by opposition MPs,in an apparent mix of determination (not to budge in the face of criticism) and haste (to pass the bill before Christmas.)

But after the committee voted them down,Public Safety Minister Vic Toews proposed virtually the same amendmentsat report stage back in the House of Commons.(Tory House Leader Van Loanlater insisted to reporters that Cotler's amendments weren't the sameasToews', but his assertionsdidn't stand up.)

Speaker Andrew Scheer blocked the move, because bills are supposed to be amended atcommittee.

Cotler met with Justice Minister Rob Nicholson and Toews the day after Scheer's ruling to discusstheir options.

Two days after C-10 passed the Commons without amendments, the Government Leader in the Senate, Marjory Lebreton, changed the government line:suddenly the Conservativesweren't in a hurry to includeC-10among bills the Senate would rush through before Christmas.Time was needed for a careful review of the legislation, she explained.

Reporters knew what that meant: the governmentwanted those amendments.

Fast-forward to Feb. 27, at the Senate legal and constitutional affairs committee. Senator Bob Runciman introduced the sameamendments Toews (and Cotler before him) had proposed. In fact, as hedid so, Nova Scotia Liberal Senator James Cowan made a point of noting for the record they were exactly the same amendments.

The "Cotler amendments" were the only ones to pass in the Senate. Curiously, Conservative Senators were reluctant to disclose to CBC News the exact wording ofthe successful amendments before the committee reported back, despite the fact they were debated and passed in a public meeting.

On March 7, the day thefinal vote on C-10 had been planned, the government hosted a press conferencewith crime victims advocates totrumpetthe success they'd soon be tasting.

That same morning, the NDP's Harris began a marathon speech in an apparenteffort to filibuster C-10's inevitable passage.

It was a lengthylast stand in the battle over C-10, which comes only to a legislative end Monday night.