HARPER TORIES SPLIT WITH FRIENDS ABROAD ON CRIME POLICY

Just how conservative are Conservative crime measures, really? In
Britain, the Conservative government of David Cameron is working
assiduously to make Britain's prison system less costly. The Cameron
Conservatives are grappling with the expensive consequences of 21
criminal justice acts introduced by their Labour predecessors, which
"increased the cost of prisons by two-thirds and sent the prison
population soaring," according to Justice Secretary Ken Clarke. "My
goal is a conservative one: to find effective ways of punishing
criminals while reducing public spending," Mr. Clarke says. In
Canada, the situation appears to be reversed. Prime Minister Stephen
Harper is emulating Labour.

In his New Year's message, Mr. Harper named 13 things his government
is doing for families, seven of which involved crime bills. The
Parliamentary Budget Officer has estimated that just one of the
government's crime laws, the Truth in Sentencing Act, which takes
away the two-for-one credit for jail time served before sentencing,
will more than double the annual costs borne by Ottawa and the
provinces; what costs $4.4-billion today will cost $9.5-billion in
2015-16. The Tories have taken issue with that estimate, but have
failed to disclose the true cost.

Another piece of legislation, Bill S-10, now before the House of
Commons, would impose mandatory minimum sentences on some drug
offenders, including minor ones, such as those caught with as few as
six marijuana plants. The legislation would put a lot more Canadians
behind bars. With the cost of housing a prisoner at $88,000 a year in
the federal system, such a measure would contribute to soaring costs.
Neither law is likely to deter drug use, and indeed a group of 400
leading physicians and scientists this week issued a statement
criticizing legislation that is "not scientifically grounded and
which research demonstrates may actually contribute to health and
social harms in our communities." Nor is it likely to reduce crime
rates, which, coincidentally, have been declining year to year even
in the absence of Tory "tough on crime" laws. In that respect, the
Conservatives in Ottawa are not behaving conservatively, at least in
a fiscal sense.

In the U.S., a group of conservatives, including Newt Gingrich,
former Republican speaker of the House of Representatives, Edwin
Meese, who served as attorney-general under Ronald Reagan, and
William J. Bennett, former federal "drug czar" under George H.W.
Bush, have issued a "Right on Crime" statement, arguing that
"conservatives are known for being tough on crime, but we must also
be tough on criminal justice spending. That means demanding more
cost-effective approaches that enhance public safety. A clear example
is our reliance on prisons, which serve a critical role by
incapacitating dangerous offenders and career criminals but are not
the solution for every type of offender." Adds Mr. Clarke in his
article in The Spectator, "Prison is not the answer for every
offender. It can harden some non-violent, low-risk individuals, who
come out as greater threats to society."

Michael Ignatieff has announced the Liberal opposition will oppose
Bill S-10. This is a good thing. The remaining question is why the
fiscal hawks in the government have not been heard on this subject.
Canada is not Dodge City, and the one sure result of the government's
posturing as frontier marshals will be to run up prison costs. At
some point, the "Right on Crime" debate will need to be held in this
country, too.