QUEBEC'S LEADERS MUST BE TOUGH ON C-10

All statistics point to the fact that crime has decreased. So why
harden the criminal law and send more people to jail? The Harper
government's "tough on crime" omnibus bill is clearly motivated by
ideology - a law-and-order mindset that chooses punishment over
rehabilitation even though we should know by now that undue
repression, far from stopping crime, only transforms minor offenders
into professional criminals.

Yet, as irrational as it is, perhaps there is some logic to be found
in Bill C-10. It is crass electoral logic. The philosophy behind the
bill will play well with many voters across Canada, including in
Quebec. This, despite the conventional wisdom that deems Quebec a more
"compassionate" province whose people prefer policies based on
rehabilitation rather than on vengeance.

Reality check: Last month, Jean-Marc Leger, the head of Leger
Marketing, revealed some of the findings of a survey done by his firm.
It showed 79 per cent of Quebeckers want our justice system to be more
severe; 77 per cent believe crimes are not punished enough in Canada;
and as many as 41 per cent want underage delinquents to be judged as
adults.

The problem is that most people don't care about statistics. On this
issue, more than anything else, they react with their gut feelings.

Indeed, the reason why crime rates - especially for homicide - have
decreased might be the very reason why people are more afraid of crime
than they used to be. It all has to do with the declining birth rate
and the aging of society. There are fewer violent crimes because there
are fewer young men - the category most susceptible to commit crimes -
and people have become more fearful because they're getting older. And
fear often leads to intolerance.

Otherwise, how can one explain that sensible and generally kind people
want to see small pot dealers stuck with a mandatory jail sentence,
when it's so clear that, at worst, it will likely ruin their lives
and, at best, force them to leave school or lose their jobs? Until
now, judges were free to use common sense. Sentencing someone
convicted of a relatively minor offence to work in the community, for
instance, is certainly more sensible than throwing him behind bars and
sticking him with a criminal record. Unfortunately, with Bill C-10 and
its provisions for mandatory sentencing, the government engages in a
huge micro-management of the courts, as if judges were incapable of
evaluating what kind of punishment fits the crime.

Quebec Justice Minister Jean-Marc Fournier made a remarkable
presentation at a recent parliamentary committee hearing. Just like
Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty, he objected to the fact that the
federal crime bill will heighten the provinces' fiscal burden by
millions in prison costs - not to mention the social and human costs.
More and longer prison terms mean more school dropouts, more
unemployment, more divorces, more family dislocation, more addictions
and so on. Mr. Fournier especially objects to the bill's provision on
young offenders and, in a commendable constructive move, intends to
present a series of amendments to C-10. The fact that many Quebeckers
actually agree with the general tenor of this bill doesn't mean their
provincial government should go with the wave. Leadership is the
ability to take a position against knee-jerk reactions.

The federal government, of course, should pick up the tab for the
costs generated by its own initiative. But more important, it should
remove the most uselessly punitive aspects of the bill.