IGNATIEFF FINDS HIS BACKBONE

As Stephen Harper dismisses his latest ethics scandal and his
Conservatives inch up in the polls, Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff
appears to have discovered his backbone - either that, or taken some
mad vow to go down fighting.

This sounds like a formula for an election, sooner rather than later,
but it would be rash to predict the outcome yet. In fact, some
Conservative partisans may have privately felt apprehensive as they
watched Ignatieff's informal scrum the other day: this guy, as he
finds his bearings, could be formidable. Others, notably in the Harper
war room, will already be gleefully scripting updated attack ads.

In that scrum, Ignatieff forcefully ridiculed the Bev Oda "amateur
hour" and questioned Harper's integrity for letting his weak and
unpopular minister get away with a transparent lie. Not that his
impatient incredulity will change anything. It was Ignatieff's strong
attack on Conservative crime legislation that was most arresting, and
risky, a marked shift from the tentative tone Liberals have preferred
on Harper's "tough-on-crime" agenda.

Ignatieff has already signalled the Liberals will no longer support a
Conservative bill that would impose mandatory jail time on drug
offenders caught with as few as six marijuana plants. In 2009, his
party voted in favour of an earlier version of this bill, for fear of
being labelled soft on crime. Maybe they've finally discovered they
are going to be misrepresented (this time, not just as potheads but as
flip-flopping potheads!), no matter what they do. So may as well do
the right thing.

Test-driving an obvious campaign slogan, Ignatieff has denounced the
measure as "dumb on crime." While Liberals are "all in favour of
cracking down on serious criminals, this bill doesn't distinguish
between massive grow ops and a first-time offender with a small
amount," he argues. "What's more, the Conservatives won't tell us what
the fiscal implications are. How many billions will it cost? How many
mega-prisons will have to be built?"

Under opposition pressure, Conservatives released a broad figure
yesterday, estimating their crime measures will cost $2.7 billion over
five years. Until now, they have denied they are hiding anything,
claimed releasing details would violate cabinet confidence, justified
this argument by accusing their Liberal predecessors of doing the same
thing, urged critics to wait for the budget for the big reveal and
argued that no one can predict what it will all cost anyway.

It gets wackier. The proposed drug bill could easily be amended to
focus on the real target -criminal drug factories hidden on remote
farms, in suburban garages, or derelict warehouses -with lesser
penalties for small fry offenders. In fact, Liberal senators tried
that approach when the issue was before the Upper Chamber last year,
suggesting a 20-plant ceiling before the mandatory minimum six-month
jail term kicks in. To no avail.

For their part, Conservatives insist young offenders subject to the
new penalties can escape compulsory jail time if they successfully
complete a drug treatment program. And, despite waning enthusiasm for
mandatory minimums in the U.S. and Britain, and warnings from Canadian
doctors, lawyers and church groups that the new measures will not
reduce crime but only fill prisons, the Conservatives appear
determined to proceed.

No doubt they can hardly wait, with Ignatieff handing them fresh
ammunition every day. In a second gamble, the Liberals this week voted
against a measure intended to tighten parole provisions for white-
collar criminals -a law that passed thanks to rare co-operation
between the Conservatives and the Bloc Qu=C3b=C3=A9cois.

Their opposition to this measure could come back to haunt the Liberals
in Quebec, where a couple of high-profile fraudsters recently received
light penalties. But Ignatieff is right: the Conservatives' hasty
response to lenient treatment of Vincent Lacroix and Earl Jones will
also punish 1,500 low-risk, non-violent offenders charged with lesser
crimes.

Two-thirds are women and onethird aboriginal, many with addictions.
They will now have to serve one-third, rather than one-sixth, of their
sentences before applying for parole -which doesn't sound onerous, but
means more minor offenders doing more jail time at whoknows-what cost.

Inconvenient details are always lost in campaign posturing, of course.
Tory ads will accuse Ignatieff of siding with sleaze artists against
women and orphans. New Democrats will smugly, and correctly, point to
past Liberal cowardice on these emotive, justice issues.

Canadians, no matter their politics, are a law-abiding and peaceloving
people, who can hardly be described as soft on crime. But, as
Ignatieff rightly argues, keeping our cities safe is not a matter of
right or left -but of smart or dumb.

If he is going to be beaten up anyway, he may as well go down
defending traditional Liberal (and liberal) values -including an
approach to crime aimed at changing behaviour, not filling jails.