CONSERVATIVES DENOUNCE LIBERAL LEADER'S 'FLIP-FLOP' ON CRIME BILL

The decision by Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff to stand against a
crime bill that he once supported was a blow to the federal
government's justice agenda -- one that allows the Conservatives to
highlight the policy gap between the two federal parties.

Justice Minister Rob Nicholson held a news conference Thursday to
lambaste Mr. Ignatieff for his party's about-face on Bill S-10, which
would impose mandatory minimum sentences for some drug crimes,
including the cultivation of as few as six marijuana plants if the
crop was intended for sale.

"What starker contrast could there be between our two political
parties and our two philosophies on that," said Mr. Nicholson. "I
think he has a lot of explanations to do as to why he has flipped on
this and I say, if he would flip-flop on this, he would flip-flop on
anything."

But, for the first time since Prime Minister Stephen Harper took
office in 2006, the Liberals are banking that the distinction
emphasized by the Conservatives will work in their favour.

With a potential election looming, Canadians are being asked to choose
between uncosted Conservative legislation that would take a hard line
on drug criminals, and the Liberals' view that the country can't
afford to throw an undetermined number of people behind bars when
similar policies have failed in other jurisdictions.

Bill S-10 has been passed by the Senate and now needs approval by the
House of Commons.

The Liberals, who supported an identical bill that died when Mr.
Harper prorogued Parliament in late 2009, say they will not support
this new piece of legislation because it would disproportionately
target young people and would cause an explosion of
mega-prisons.

They also point out that another Conservative justice bill, one that
removed the two-for-one credit given for time served before
sentencing, has been projected by Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin
Page to cost $10-billion over five years. The Conservatives originally
set aside $90-million for that legislation, then increased their own
estimate to $2-billion -- far short of Mr. Page's projection.

When asked why the government will not supply a cost breakdown of the
bill as has been demanded by the opposition, Mr. Nicholson said the
costs are just an excuse being used by the Liberals for voting against
S-10.

He would not attach a dollar figure to the legislation when asked to
do so by reporters. Nor would he estimate the increased number of
people who would be incarcerated -- a figure that would indicate how
many new prisons would have to be constructed.

Don Head, the commissioner of the Correctional Service of Canada, was
asked at a Commons committee earlier in the day to provide estimates
for how much the Conservative justice bills will cost taxpayers and
how many more inmates they will create.

Although Mr. Head offered to provide those numbers for the bills that
have been passed into law, he said he could not divulge the costs of
legislation that has yet to be enacted. "Unfortunately," he said, "I
am bound by cabinet confidence."

Mr. Head did tell MPs that he expected to hire 4,000 more staff over
the next two years, and said that 30 per cent of federal prisoners
would likely have to share cells with other inmates before prison
expansion is completed.

Mark Holland, the Liberal public safety critic, said the problem with
Bill S-10 is that it doesn't distinguish between an 18-year-old who
makes a mistake by growing six plants and a member of the Hells Angels
who grows 200.

And without knowing what the bill will cost, "we are really walking
around with a blindfold on." Before Parliament votes on something,
"Canadians would rightfully expect we know how much we're signing on
for," said Mr. Holland.

The approach of the Conservatives has been tried many places and has
always failed to make streets safer despite the cost, he said. "States
like California find themselves near bankruptcy with policies they are
desperate to undo and have little power to change," he said.