The Pundits | The Star's online election forum

Crime and Punishment

Welcome to Day One of The Pundits, which launches today along with Howard Stern's debut on the Sirius radio network. Our pundits won't pocket $220 million (U.S.) in stock for meeting subscription targets, nor will they discuss published reports about their rumoured marriage to Beth Ostrosky. Pretty much everything else is up for discussion, though, as more than 1,500 office-seekers in Campaign 2006 are discovering at the doorstep and at all-candidates meetings in 308 federal ridings.

Today's topic is crime and the policy proposals for dealing with it. Not only is this the first federal campaign in modern times in which crime has emerged as a significant issue for all three major parties in English Canada. It's the first time the Grits, Tories and NDP are all competing with get-tough remedies, which they're likely to raise in tonight's English-language debate.

What are the merits of each party's platform on crime, which span all sorts of remedies from stiffer sentencing guidelines for judges to making illegal the possession of handguns for most Canadians? And, given that rates of violent crime are continuing a decline that began more than a decade ago, in both Canada and the U.S., is the campaign focusing on crime at the expense of other issues? Medical wait times, for instance, don't seem to be commanding the leaders' attention in the post-Christmas half of the campaign, and global warming appears to have slipped off the agenda ever since the writ was dropped - something of surprise, given the pre-campaign controversy over Kyoto sparked by the world conference on climate change in Montreal late last year.

Posted by David Olive at 7:26 a.m.

Crime reform fallacies

Star columnist Carol Goar addresses shortcomings of the crime debate today:

The Liberals are advocating a ban on all handguns, a doubling of jail sentences for gun-related crimes, increased border security, an RCMP task force to deal with guns and gangs and a $50 million Gun Violence and Gang Prevention Fund.

Their Conservative rivals are countering with a proposal to beef up support for local police, enact stiff manadory jail sentences for gun-related offences, stop the inflow of handguns from the United States and invest in programs for at-risk youth.

The trouble with these schemes is that handguns already are banned, tough penalties for gun-related crimes already exist and roughly 9 million firearms are already in the country. Moreover, Ottawa's instant experts are ignoring the effective programs that community groups have developed.

And there is a deeper problem. The political sparring has created a false dichotomy between those who want to get today's thugs off the streets and those who want to keep tomorrow's disadvantaged kids from following in their footsteps. No strategy can work without both.

The parties are offering quantifiable specifics. But the public would end up with a hastily constructed patchwork, not a coherent plan.

Campaign Priorities

Tim Powers (Conservative):

Good morning everyone and good luck in tonight's debates!

On the issue of crime and violent gun crime - specifically murder - it doubled in Toronto last year. It did not decline.

There is no fix-all cure to this horrible violence. But stronger measures to protect our citizens must be instituted. Two such initiatives Stephen Harper has proposed are longer mandatory minimum sentences of 5 years and helping the municipalities put more police on the street - 2500 of them Canada wide to be specific. He is also determined to fill the 1000 plus unfilled RCMP positions that where left vacant on the Liberal watch. Real deterrents are necessary. Our policy offers that.

Safe Streets is one of the Conservative Party's five priorities. Health Care is another. During the early days of the campaign Stephen Harper announced a health wait time guarantee. Something he would work to establish with the provinces for the benefit of the public. More details can be found on www.conservative.ca . It was only last week that the Prime Minister spoke about health care interestingly on the crucial matter of mental health policy he re-announced a policy he had unveiled in November. It is hard to believe the man who gutted the system can fix it - maybe Justice Gomery said he could - I don't know.

The other three major and immediate priorities of the Conservative Party are tax relief for Canadians, choice in child care and the cleaning up of government with the Federal Accountability Act. The later I am sure will get some good discussion tonight in Montreal. In the last two weeks we have heard too often the phrase "the RCMP is investigating the Liberal government."

On a lighter note, one of our tour people told me a great story about the RCMP doing an advance site check for an event later this week. The RCMP came to a particular Conservative campaign office on the East Coast and informed the young volunteer who greeted them that they were there to do a security check. The worker in question said, "sorry you have the wrong office the Liberals are across the street." I kid you not!

Issues in an election? Mon dieu

Jamey Heath (NDP):

It's interesting we're starting by referencing the charade in which Mr. Martin engaged at the climate change conference in Montreal. Then, in classic Liberal fashion, he dared lecture the United States on climate change when in fact thanks to his own failure, Canada's emissions are rising faster. The resulting fascination with the spat stopped a real debate about whether Liberals believe what they pretend to.

This can be applied to almost any issue, since a good brawl with Mr. Harper has the manipulative benefit of drowning out substantive discussion of issues such as crime.  Why, for example, is there such a sense of exclusion and communities unable to provide the opportunities young people need after 12 years of Liberal government if indeed Liberals are so good at those kind of solutions? Jack Layton unveiled a significant plan for youth-at-risk last week, backed up by a record of investing in those communities. Investing proceeds of crime into crime-prone neighbourhoods was among the practical ideas recommended.

On the justice side, Canada's porous borders and the guns coming across them need to become the priority they have not been and illegal gun possession can't continue to be treated as minor offences. By the same token, the rise in gang violence must be taken seriously by protecting people with better witness protection to avoid retribution being doled out on the street.

That parties are discussing the prevention and punishment of crime is good. And if Mr. Martin stops flailing around and picking laughable fights to make his make-believe values look more sincere, other key issues would enjoy more daylight in which to be discussed.  But that's never in the Liberal interest, since the more one looks, the more one realizes Paul Martin's Liberals have fallen a long way from what the party used to be.

Liberal crime strategy about values

Sheila Gervais (Liberal):

The Liberal strategy for me epitomizes the traditional Liberal approach to our societal problems: one of balance, and one based on values. It is based on the values enshrined in the Constitution of peace, order and good government. It is also reflective of the principles all Liberals subscribe to when they take out a membership card: "individual freedom, responsibility and human dignity in the framework of a just society."

Interestingly, there are some differences on the small details and degree but most of the proposals of the three main parties run a similar course: increased sentences for violent and gun-related crimes; increased enforcement measures; and measures to combat the illegal smuggling of firearms across our borders. Where I think the Liberals pull away from the pack, however, is that their strategy is really all about creating healthier and safer communities, something that impacts individual Canadians right across this country.

In this way, it is more of a "prevention of crime" strategy than the meaner "crime and punishment" strategy of, for example, the Conservatives. The Liberals focus on alleviating some of the societal conditions that can lead to the despair and desperation that force many of our youth in particular into crime-related "employment" simply to survive (who would ever choose crime over dignity?): a comprehensive child care program; increasing the availability of affordable housing (the most basic element in combating the cycle of poverty); and community-based programs targeted toward youth-at-risk and youth in conflict with the law, and increased emphasis on engaging youth in the workplace, to give all young people a healthy and sustainable start in life.

And then there is the proposed ban on handguns (I'd go further). Some argue that this is purely a symbolic issue, that it won't accomplish anything much other than making law-abiding citizens part of the crime problem. Well, as a Liberal, I say that the symbolism is important – especially when it is indicative of Canadian values and the concept of inherent rights. In Canada we do not value the "right to bear arms," we value the right to live in a free, peaceful and democratic society. And – this is only my personal opinion – I cannot comprehend how the rights of an individual in Canada to participate in a sport could trump those rights in any way. Society evolves to protect our rights. For goodness sake, Britain has recently banned fox hunting! A cruel, undignified "sport" which many claimed as part of their cultural heritage. Handguns, for any purpose other than our collective security, in my view, are not part of ours.

Sorry, values?

Heath (NDP):

Sheila's comments are interesting, notably for their tenuous connection to fact.  The NDP clearly doesn't question the balance required to help communities become safer: Our plan addresses both the necessity to build stronger communities, and also the imperative to address gun smuggling, take illegal possession of firearms seriously and protect witnesses.  That none of this has occurred despite Liberals virtually owning Toronto for 12 years speaks volumes to how badly the GTA has been taken for granted.

As evidence, let's focus on just one of the values Sheila says Martin Liberals have: Affordable housing.  The old national housing program was created in a 1970s minority when former NDP leader David Lewis forced Pierre Trudeau to do it; it went on to become UN-recognized before it was literally abolished by Paul Martin in the 1990s.  For the sake of argument let us assume the deficit made him do it, and ask why, if it's such a Liberal value, affordable housing wasn't built long after the deficit was gone.

Indeed, it's such a Liberal value that in the first Martin budget last spring he included, oh yes, absolutely nothing for its construction.  Instead, corporations were due to receive $4.6 billion in corporate tax reductions that Mr. Martin didn't feel the need to tell anyone about in the last election.  Only due to Jack Layton forcing the removal of the tax cuts was $1.6 billion included in the budget to build the kind of affordable housing on which strong communities depend.

To recap, then, Mr. Martin literally gutted affordable housing, didn't include a penny to build it in his first budget as PM and only due to NDP outlining its conditions last spring did this so-called value become more important than the corporate tax cuts that Liberals never talk about.  People are tired of these games?  Gee, go figure.

Time Out

Cries and whispers from the campaign trail

From today's Star:

Ignatieff says he'll deal with Liberal 'mess'

"The only thing I can do is roll up my sleeves and go up there to try to clean up the mess a little bit. I'll bring a shovel." -Michael Ignatieff, doorstopping in Etobicoke-Lakeshore for the, er, Grits.

Liberals Value Power

Powers (Conservative):

I have much respect for Sheila Gervais and I think she has cleverly tried to change the channel on the crime debate by using those Liberal code words of "values" and "meaner".

To quote Sheila speaking about the differences in the approach to crime:

In this way, it is more of a "prevention of crime" strategy than the meaner "crime and punishment" strategy of, for example, the Conservatives. The Liberals focus on alleviating some of the societal conditions that can lead to the despair and desperation that force many of our youth in particular into crime-related "employment" simply to survive (who would ever choose crime over dignity?): a comprehensive child care program; increasing the availability of affordable housing (the most basic element in combating the cycle of poverty); and community-based programs targeted toward youth-at-risk and youth in conflict with the law, and increased emphasis on engaging youth in the workplace, to give all young people a healthy and sustainable start in life.

The Conservative plan does have $50 million dollars set aside for youth and community prevention strategies. But if our approach is as mean as Sheila suggests why is it recently that the Liberal government, along with the Premier of Ontario and the Mayor of Toronto raised the specter of reverse-onus bail? This is an attempt at putting the "p" back in punishment albiet at the 11th hour.

Our approach to crime has been commended by the Canadian Professional Police Association, former Toronto Police Chief Fantino, among a community of others. Incidentally it is these front line people who for years have worked on community policing approaches that go far beyond after the fact punishment.

If the Prime Minister was so concerned about helping Canadian youth - why as Finance Minister did he gut the education transfer payments to the provinces? Why did he not live up to his commitment to providing the provinces with a dedicated education transfer? During the last election, Paul Martin promised his Liberals would form a government focused on post-secondary education. Among his promises was to divide the Canada Social Transfer to create a separate transfer payment, amounting to between $7 billion and $8 billion, dedicated to universities (New Brunswick Telegraph-Journal, February 25, 2005). No such transfer was created.

The Liberal Party always tries to appropriate the terrain of values when things get tough. They always want you to believe they are kinder and gentler than the rest of us but their record of caring, particularly over the last 12 years, is dubious (if you don't believe me ask the 100 aboriginal first nations that are without proper water systems). What they value is staying in power!

Stats, damned stats, and crime

The non-fatal shooting of an unidentified 71-year-old man this morning outside a North York nightclub might be a bookend to the tragic death of 15-year-old Jane Creba on Boxing Day. See Star report.

Reporter Dan Gardner in the Ottawa Citizen debunks the Toronto "crime wave."

We are still left with the horrendous toll of 52 gun killings [in Toronto] in 2005, a record high and a dramatic jump from 17 such killings in 1992...[But it's] out of line with a decline in gun crime that has been going on fairly steadily for decades...

It takes only a relative handful of gangsters, battling for turf and control of the drug trade, to inflict that toll. That little band of thugs is a serious problem. But it does not reflect a general trend toward "rampant" gun crime, as many are carelessly saying. It does not mean the city, much less the country, is facing a growing menace. And it certainly does not say, as so many have concluded, that the criminal justice system is broken.

The facts are clear: Gun crime is not soaring and Toronto is safer today than it has been in years.

University of Toronto criminology student Philip Kolba adds in a Star op-ed:

According to Statistics Canada, the homicide rate in Toronto, and Canada, has been decreasing since 1991. So, as the population of Toronto has increased, the total number of homicides has generally gone down. Toronto also has a lower homicide rate than that of Canada overall since at least 1991.

In 1991, there were 103 homicides in Toronto. By 2001, the number fell to 78. It spiked in 2002 and 2003, with 90 and 95 homicides, respectively. In 2005, there were 78 homicides, which matches the number in 2001. So the rate is still going down...

Though punishing criminals is a valid role for the justice system, increasing the punishment does little to decrease gun violence...Research shows most people are not familiar with the criminal law well enough to know the sentence for a particular crime, and that most violent crimes are committed impulsively. So increasing the penalties would do little to deter shootings....

The same three parties also have plans for strengthening border security to prevent illegal guns from entering the country. Smuggling to Canada should be prevented, but the guns are a symptom of the problem and focusing on them misses the point...

If the parties want to decrease gun violence in Canada, they need to address the reasons young people join violent gangs, including unemployment, lack of education, and a sense of belonging.

The unfilled RCMP positions to which Tim refers are inexplicable. Increased police presence is one of the most effective crime deterrents. And it builds up our "intel" as police gain the trust of citizens able to report on gang activity, terrorist sleeper cells and the like.

And youth-at-risk initiatives, noted by Jamey and Sheila, jibe with the preference of criminologists to go beyond symptoms to root causes.

Further to Tim's run-down on recent RCMP activities, I'm with Jeff Simpson and the Globe's editorial board in wondering what the heck the RCMP is doing inserting itself in a federal election campaign.

It's interesting to note in the Abramoff scandal the widespread speculation that the U.S. Justice Dept. will curtail or postpone its activities if its dragnet pulls in too many members of Congress prior to this fall's mid-term election, just as the Abscam incriminators pulled in their horns prior of the 1980 election - on the principle that law enforcement activities should not supplant voters in determining the outcome of elections.

Posted by David Olive

Unfortunately, it just politics

Gervais (Liberal):

Well, David, at the risk of looking like a bit of a toady, I can't disagree with you. Neither on the  "crime" issue, nor the objectionable insertion of the RCMP into the middle of an election campaign. 

But I'm not sure that it's the RCMP who inserted themselves or wanted to.  In the case of the income trust issue for example, this was the NDP playing pure, shrewed politics with the Conservatives happy to jump on the bandwagon.  Politics over principle? Not the NDP of yore; I guess I had that one wrong. 

Correct me if I am wrong, but when a parliamentarian asks the RCMP for an investigation they kind of have to, well, investigate don't they?  So, the RCMP writes to NDP Judy Wasylycia-Leis on December 23 to say they are investigating which allows her to say see! There's a problem.  No release from the RCMP though.  Not until the NDP made it public themselves on December 28.  And what did that release say?

Given the seriousness of the allegations, the RCMP is now undertaking a criminal investigation of this matter. In particular, the RCMP wishes to note that at this time there is no evidence of wrongdoing or illegal activity on the part of anyone associated to this investigation including the Minister of Finance Ralph Goodale

(all emphasis mine)

Advertisers know that it takes a minimum of three times for a message to resonate with the consumer, and if they are pre-disposed, to take the bait and believe the message, and several more hits for them to be motivated enough to buy the product.

Over to the Conservatives for the bait and switch. Tim (above):

In the last two weeks we have heard too often the phrase "the RCMP is investigating the Liberal government."

I agree on the "too often" part.

And at the risk of belabouring the point (I can hear the chorus of my Liberal friends saying: enough already!) here's an edited version of what the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission cautioned Wasylycia-Leis in response to her complaint to them (again, any emphasis mine):

Please understand that the SEC generally conducts its investigations on a confidential basis and neither confirms nor denies the existence of an investigation unless we bring charges against someone involved…The SEC generally conducts investigations confidentially for two main reasons. First, we can conduct investigations more effectively if they are not announced publicly... Second, we keep our investigations confidential to protect the reputations of companies and individuals if we find no wrongdoing or decide we cannot bring a successful action against them. The SEC will not typically confirm or deny the existence of an investigation unless, and until, it becomes a matter of public record as the result of a court action or administrative proceeding.

Who made this letter public?  Check the url on the link above - yup! the NDP.  Okay then, let's talk about ethics, selective messaging and electioneering.

And even though Liberals were caught between a rock and a hard place on this one, I think we added to the public's cynicism. I have a sneaking suspicion that Ralph Goodale felt that he could better defend his well-earned reputation of integrity and ethical behaviour by stepping aside while an investigation, albeit unwarranted, proceeded.  That, after all is accountability.  I think he was "over-ruled".  If I'm right, it was a mistake.  Unfortunately, that's politics.

Well, I swore I wouldn't do this.  Get down in the mud and play dirty.  But it's this side of politics that's just so aggravating.  Nobody in this campaign has a monopoly on ethics and accountability.  No one.

Time Out

Party of one?

[Harper] should be commended both on his ability to connect with the Canadian people and his ability to keep 307 Conservative candidates completely silent on any and all issues.

I was relieved to see Peter MacKay on the news once this week. I was worried that perhaps he had been abducted. He didn't speak but I believe he was blinking in Morse code.

-Rick Mercer, National Post Election Panel, Jan. 7

Posted by Moderator