CANADIANS BUY INTO HARPER'S CRIME CRACKDOWN

Despite statistics showing falling crime rates, two-thirds of the
public like the get-tough stance

Everybody wants to be a tough guy, but no one wants to pay the price
- - except for Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

He has embraced his inner Clint Eastwood, vowing if reelected in his
first 100 days to force judges to impose stiffer sentences, to do
more to protect victims of crime and to tighten up parole rules.

Instead of some milquetoast legal system, every shoplifter and
pot-growing minion of organized crime would face a new reality: "You
feeling lucky, punk?" If you can't do the time, and Harper has his
way, you better not do the crime.

And, much as critics may parody the Conservative public safety
platform as cobbled together from bad U.S. film scripts, the country
seems to like what it's hearing.

A fairly recent opinion poll suggested two-thirds of Canadians agreed
with Harper. The Angus Reid data indicated ordinary folk thought the
justice system was too soft and that we needed to stop mollycoddling criminals.

"Canadians have been saying yes to our approach on cracking down on
crime," Harper told a cheering throng in Surrey.

No matter the evidence of a decade of declining crime rates, the
nation feels less safe and the Tories say that requires broad changes
and a legal cultural shakeup.

Compared with the other parties, the Conservative public-safety
platform is more extensive, more detailed and more radical in the
changes a re-elected Harper government would introduce.

The Tory package, however, is shrouded in foggy cost estimates, and
distrust about the government's projections on correctional expenses
contributed to the rancour that brought it down.

Nevertheless, the prime minister says Canadians are ready to pay the
price, whatever it might be.

Initially, that price tag was $2.7 billion over the five years. The
stiffer parole standards were expected to cost about $386 million,
the elimination of early parole an extra $200 million and the
building of new jails for the increased prison population about $2
billion based on a Correctional Services estimate that an increase of
3,400 inmates would require 2,700 new bunks.

Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page disagreed. He said the
Conservative figure was a lowball and he figured a more realistic
estimate was $5 billion.

His office put the increase at 4,200 prisoners at a cost of
$1.8-billion for facility construction and an additional $3-billion a
year for operations and maintenance.

It costs $343,810 a year to keep a woman in jail and between $140,527
and $223,687 for a man, depending on the security level of the
prison, according to Page's office.

Each parolee costs $39,084 a year.

Page suggested that under Harper's proposed changes, annual prison
expenditures would increase to $9.3 billion from today's $4.3 billion
by 2015-16.

The Conservatives acknowledge their estimates undoubtedly will rise,
but defend their attempt to change the culture of the legal and
corrections system from one of rehabilitation to punishment by
brandishing victimization studies.

Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff and NDP leader Jack Layton have had
a hard time countering the Tory momentum on the issue; laying even a
kid-glove on Harper is difficult without looking "soft on crime."

For instance, when Ignatieff had the temerity to suggest "there will
be changes in Canada's criminal justice policy when we are elected,"
Public Safety Minister Vic Toews scoffed as if the Grit chief were
inviting Tony Soprano to sit in cabinet.

"Canadians want a government that understands the importance of safe
streets and communities and that takes the necessary initiatives to
crack down on dangerous, repeat and violent offenders," he said.

Ignatieff was saying only that a Liberal government would review the
amendments to the Criminal Code expected to drive up costs
exponentially by putting more and more people behind bars.

But he was hamstrung arguing the point since the Liberals voted for
one of the most problematic of the Conservative changes from the last
Parliament: Bill C-25, a.k.a. the Truth in Sentencing Act, passed in
2010 to halt judges from giving automatic two-for-one credit to
convicts for time spent in pretrial custody.

Similarly, when Ignatieff complains the government is building
"U.S.-style megaprisons" and hints he'd cancel them, he's leaving
himself lots of wriggle room.

For good reason. Under construction, for instance - at a cost of $1.1
billion to Ontario taxpayers over 30 years - is the 1,650 bed Toronto
South Detention Centre, a 67,000 square metre "superjail" to replace
the city's decrepit 550-bed Don Jail. As well, 634 new beds have been
announced for prisons in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario and Quebec,
at a cost of $158 million.

That's a lot of construction jobs and more full-time correctional jobs.

The Liberals will only say "any projected prison expenditure will be
decided based on a review that will be conducted of the entire justice agenda."

NDP leader Layton, on the other hand, has consistently maintained his
party doesn't agree with the idea we need to build more jails or
throw more people in prison to make our communities safer.

As befits his left-of-centre perspective, Layton would pursue an
entirely different strategy: Instead of hiring more construction
workers and prison guards, he'd hire more cops, social workers and teachers.

"I don't see why we need more prisons when the crooks seem so happy
in the Senate," he quipped during the leaders' debate.

More seriously, his approach to battling crime will be to pump $250
million or more into prevention - 2,500 additional police jobs along
with expanded social service and educational programs such as those
aimed at reducing gang violence.

"Prevention is the key tool to stamp out street crime at its source,"
Layton says.

When you look at the cost of imprisonment, he argues it is cheaper
and better for everyone in the long run to spend more trying to reach
disaffected youth.

The NDP would make gang recruitment illegal, Layton adds, and he
would make carjacking and home invasions separate offences under the
Criminal Code.

(That last bit is mostly rhetoric - judges can deal with such
situations already if there are aggravating circumstances, we don't
need special laws.) Ultimately, the key difference between all three
parties is the cost of their law-and-order platforms in tough
economic times when governments face difficult choices between health
care, education and prisons.

So it's worth considering the experience of America, whose penal
policies Harper is accused of emulating.

The U.S. spends $68 billion on corrections - 300 per cent more than
25 years ago - and its prison population is growing 13 times faster
than the general population.

Arizona's population has roughly doubled in the past 30 years; its
prison population reportedly has gone up tenfold.

Even states like Texas are moving to community-based programs, such
as more probation and parole services, because the cost of locking
people up is too high and recidivism rates raise questions about its utility.

Harper is far from advocating Canada go all the way down that road,
but he does want to make our criminal system harder-nosed and more
attuned to victims and those who feel bullied.

That will always be difficult. Unlike the U.S., with its defining
myth of the lone sheriff riding in to rescue terrified town folk,
Canada's history, Constitution and law-order and-good-government
culture militate against such an individualist allegory.

Regardless, aside from the legislative agenda, the new prime minister
may have a chance to leave a more lasting legacy by appointing
likeminded jurists to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Justices Ian Binnie, Morris Fish and Louis LeBel - a third of the
high bench - reach the mandatory retirement age of 75 within the next
four years.

In the minority Parliament, Harper stayed in the middle of the road
with his choices to the court, Justices Marshall Rothstein and Thomas
Cromwell. A majority would strengthen his hand.

He has committed to have future appointments vetted by Parliament,
which requires them to withstand some scrutiny, but that's all.

Harper has said: "We've got to make sure that we have courts that
apply the law, not courts that apply their own criteria."

There would be no greater way of influencing a generation of legal
debate and thinking on every issue, including abortion, right-to-die,
mandatory sentence review, property rights, federal-provincial
jurisdiction and national security versus dissent.

Law-and-order perspectives separate the parties in this campaign like
few others.

The chasm between the Conservatives and the others on the core
principles of the criminal system may herald a sea change, especially
if the Tories win a majority and play to the country's anxieties.

[sidebar]

A QUICK LOOK AT THE CRIME PLATFORMS OF THE NATIONAL PARTIES

CONSERVATIVES

Prime Minister Stephen Harper vows to bundle all his controversial
criminal justice legislation into a single omnibus bill and pass it
within "100 sitting days" of taking office. Specifically, he would:

. End house arrest for serious and violent criminals.

. Eliminate pardons for serious criminals.

. Establish tougher sentences and mandatory jail time for child sex abuse.

. Get tough with violent and repeat young offenders.

. Give law enforcement and national security agencies up to-date
tools to fight crime in today's high-tech telecommunications environment.

. Put public safety first when considering requests to transfer
prisoners back to Canada.

. Allow victims of terrorism to sue perpetrators and supporters in Canada.

. Streamline long and complex trials to ensure justice is delivered swiftly.

NEW DEMOCRATS

NDP leader Jack Layton has spent the campaign dodging Tory broadsides
that his party is soft on crime and trying not to sound like he is
defending the status quo. He is promising:

. A series of measures that would see $150 million go to pay for
2,500 more police officers and double the budgets of anti-gang squads.

. To outlaw gang recruitment.

. To legislate tougher punishments for those convicted of home
invasions, car hijacking, gang membership and elder abuse.

. To emphasize crime prevention - investing $100 million a year in
social and community programs.

LIBERALS

Although crime rates are declining nationally, Liberal leader Michael
Ignatieff says some families don't always feel safe in their own
neighbourhoods. He would:

. Improve the gun registry.

. Move to establish a civilian oversight board for the RCMP.

. Restore transparency and address management and leadership issues
in the national police force.

. Create a community heroes fund to give $300,000 to the families of
fallen police officers or firefighters.

. Offer a volunteer firefighter tax credit.

. Establish a national task force to examine the possible systemic
causes of disproportionate violence against aboriginal women.