HARPER'S PLAN FOR A SAFER CANADA

Last week, the federal government introduced legislation to "get tough
on crime," as it promised it would throughout last winter's federal
campaign. The twin bills propose automatic minimum sentences of
between three and 10 years for anyone convicted of using a gun in the
commission of a crime, an end to house arrest and "conditional
sentencing" for violent offenders, and up to a quarter of a billion
dollars for new prisons. This marks the biggest change in the
philosophy behind Canada's criminal justice system since 1971, when
the Trudeau government switched the system's goals from punishment to
rehabilitation.

Predictably, the opposition parties immediately jumped on the new laws
as "too harsh," while social theorists and prisoners-rights activists
predicted the measures would do nothing to reduce crime. On the
contrary, the government's proposals aren't harsh enough. But given
the intellectual resistance the Conservatives face in Parliament, last
week's provisions are the best that can be achieved at this time. (A
third bill needs to be introduced in the near future -- and one has
been promised -- that will deal with the illegal drug trade, the
profits from which are the single largest impetus behind the growing
number of shootings in Canada, particularly in Toronto.)

Notwithstanding the rhetoric of the Liberals and NDP, various academic
experts and such special interests as the Elizabeth Fry Society, the
government's measure will reduce crime.

Over the past decade-and-a-half, several large U.S. cities that
adopted crime-fighting strategies similar to the Tories' plan
experienced remarkable declines in violent crime. For instance,
murders in New York City are down nearly 70%. And in Washington --
once America's most deadly city -- murders are off 46%. After more
than a decade of harsher sentencing, crime has fallen in 48 of 50
states. During the same period, six of 10 provinces have seen crime
rise.

This is not rocket science: Since a relatively small percentage of
criminals commit the lion's share of crime, it makes sense that
locking up those criminals for longer periods will keep them from
breaking the law.

It is true Canada's violent crime rates are not as high as those in
the United States. Still, theirs are moving in the right direction
while ours, after falling since the late 1970s, are rising again.

Consider Toronto. Two years ago, Mayor David Miller suggested that
what was needed to stem his city's increasing street violence was more
"outreach" to minority communities. His administration sought more
drop-in centres, more late-night recreation, even, maybe, hiring
quotas for city businesses to make them give jobs to black youths --
the culprits in most of the city's high-profile gun battles.

When his measures failed and gun crime rose by nearly one-fifth over
the following 18 months, Mr. Miller imposed on the federal Liberal
government to convene a "community crime summit," which it did last
September. And what, in the face of all the evidence, did that summit
conclude? That only more drop-in centres, midnight basketball and
spending on minority communities could reduce crime. Surprise, surprise.

The trouble with this "root causes" approach to crime fighting is that
it cannot work, at least not as an instrument of state policy. Root
causes are beyond the state's problem-solving ability. Communities can
change their cultures -- by no longer tolerating fatherless homes and
ceasing to reinforce the idea that violence and lawlessness are cool
- -- and thereby lower the likelihood of community members falling into
gangs, drugs and crime. But governments cannot impose such cultural
change from above.

One hopes communities whose members are currently prone to committing
crime will fix themselves. In the interim, the Tories' new crime
strategy will make all of us safer.