Crackdown on crime: will it really work?

If there's any single issue that's likely to force an early federal election, it's the Conservative government's insistence on sweeping changes in our approach to crime generally and violent crime in particular.

We live in an era when incidents of violent crime are apparently in a statistical decline, yet when modern means of communication have created the opposite impression, to the point where most Canadians think the crime rate is soaring.

As a result, the Stephen Harper Conservatives see this as a perfect election issue. Although all three opposition parties see the omnibus crime bill as an over-reaction or worse, the prime minister has concentrated his attack on the Liberals as showing once more that they are "soft on crime."

Although the Speech from the Throne listed other priorities, the stance on crime stands out as one that leaves little room for the opposition parties to manoeuvre, particularly if the government makes votes to amend the bill a confidence issue.

Certainly, no party is going to vote against tax cuts, particularly with an election in the offing, and the selection of John Manley to head an independent panel that will make recommendations on the Afghan mission should defuse that issue. The former MP, who once was deputy prime minister in the Chrétien Liberal government, will head a panel that will choose from among four wide-ranging options: continuing the current mission by training the Afghan army and police with the goal of creating a self-sufficient security force; focusing on reconstruction in Kandahar province while passing main security responsibilities to another foreign force; moving the military operations and reconstruction efforts to other, less dangerous areas of Afghanistan, and withdrawing Canadian forces altogether after February 2009, leaving only a small contingent to ensure security for diplomats.

The Tackling Violent Crime bill is a mixed bag, which includes measures on impaired driving, the age of sexual consent, stricter bail conditions, and longer mandatory prison terms for gun crimes.

All of these measures were in legislation during the first session of Parliament, bills that Harper has revived as one omnibus crime bill. The government has already indicated in the Throne Speech that the crime bill will be a matter of confidence, meaning that if the opposition votes it down, an election would be triggered.

The prime minister has brushed past the Liberals' decision to abstain from voting the Throne Speech, staking the government's survival on a new uncompromising stand on crime legislation.

While Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion's move means the government will survive early confidence votes on its broad agenda, Harper quickly indicated his government will not accept amendments to the omnibus crime bill, which stripped out some amendments passed in the last session, forcing the opposition to choose between an election and accepting measures they deemed unacceptable last term.

"We will be seeking timely passage of this legislation, and as is the case with confidence measures, the government will not accept amendments to the substance of these initiatives," he said.

An important consideration is whether the legislation will really accomplish its goal of making Canadians feel safer.

One does not have to look far to see tougher sentencing in general and mandatory sentences in particular doing little more than stimulate the construction industry (through building hundreds of new jails and employment (through having to staff them). That's surely the case south of the border, where the United States seems to be in a race with China to have more of its population behind bars.

There's little doubt that we need tough sentencing for gun-related crimes, but surely the answer lies in raising the maximum penalties rather than removing judicial discretion by instituting U.S.-style mandatory minimums.

Part of the problem lies in the fact that lawbreakers generally don't expect to be caught. The best weapon against violent crime would be wider involvement of the general public, through more co-operation with police and greater use of the Crime Stoppers alternative. As we see it, public support of our law enforcers will do a lot more to reduce crime than any legislative crackdown.