WHERE DOES IGNATIEFF STAND ON CRIME? EVERYWHERE

As recently as two weeks ago, leading Liberals were sneering that the
Tories' quartet of tough-oncrime bills were, in fact, "dumb on crime."

Punishing young and adult offenders with longer sentences and tougher
parole conditions would do nothing, the Libs scoffed, to make Canadian
streets safer. What was needed was more money for crime prevention.
Attack the root causes of crime, they urged. Throw money at
poverty-reduction programs and campaigns to encourage poor young
people to stay in school, avoid drugs and alcohol, and take job
training. What's needed to reduce crime, the party and its leader
Michael Ignatieff argued, is to recognize the good in every boy and
bring it out of him before he strays into a life of addiction,
unemployment and crime.

On Feb. 9, Liberal Public Safety critic Mark Holland labelled the Tory
approach of cracking down on crime "a failed strategy." He then hurled
the worst insult any Liberal can think of: He called the Tory plan to
impose longer jail sentences "American-style" justice.

The Liberals also charged that the Tory plan would be exorbitantly
expensive, costing upwards of $10-billion to $13-billion to build and
operate what the Grits called "mega-prisons." So incensed were they
the Tories would not come clean on the price of their get-tough
policies that the Liberals brought contempt of Parliament charges
against the government, voted non-confidence in Prime Minister Stephen
Harper and his ministers and precipitated the current election.

In a way, you could say the Liberals' opposition to Tory crime bills
caused this election. At nearly every stop along the campaign, Mr.
Ignatieff has hammered home the message that the Tory government is
out of touch with Canadians over "jets, jails and corporate tax cuts."

Of course, then, if the Liberals get a chance to form a government
following the May 2 election, they will repeal all the tough-on-crime
laws and cancel the $600-million in prison construction the Tories
have already begun. Right?

Oh, um, not quite. After spending months criticizing the Tory approach
to crime -even denying there was a crime problem in Canada that needed
fixing -Mr. Holland confessed Monday that a Liberal government would
keep the four Tory crime bills in place. None would be repealed.

"I don't see anything right now that we need to go back and undo," he
told reporters. Instead of cancelling the Tory initiatives they have
insisted all along were unnecessary and unaffordable, the Liberals now
say the will merely add hundreds of millions for root-cause
initiatives. "The first thing we're going to restore is all cuts to
prevention programs."

Mr. Holland also pointed to the Liberal campaign platform, released on
the weekend, that contains a pledge of $550million for construction of
affordable housing and $5-billion in anti-poverty measures. Those two
initiatives, Liberals believe, should cut down on crime by giving
potential, future criminals a decent place to live and money for food,
education and recreation, so they are steered away from crime before
it becomes their career.

If pressed on their apparent about-face on the Tories' crime agenda,
the Liberals will no doubt argue that repealing the government's four
bills is unnecessary because they would, among other things, look at
ways to cut down the time the accused spend in remand centres awaiting
hearings and trial. That would render much of the Tories'
truth-in-sentencing bill moot. (Bill C-25 prevents judges from
crediting inmates for the time they served in remand before being convicted.)

This would be a good move. In far too many cases, it takes two years
or longer for criminal cases to come to trial in Canada. Justice
delayed is bad for society and for the victims, as well as being
unfair to the accused -especially those eventually found not guilty.

But speaking of hidden costs: How much do the Liberals imagine would
have to be spent to build more courthouses and hire more judges and
Crown prosecutors to reduce remand stays? Added to the cost of their
crime-prevention measures, affordable housing and anti-poverty
campaigns, surely the cost of the Liberal approach would be higher
than the Tories' get-tough strategy.

Which means bigger deficits -perhaps even (dare I say it)
"American-style" deficits.