The federal government's plan to get tough on crime may be popular with Canadian voters, but New Brunswick Justice Minister Kelly Lamrock says it could cost the province millions and won't have the desired effect of reducing crime.
The federal Conservatives have introduced a number of different bills in recent weeks as a part of their tougher stance on crime, which was one of their stated priorities when first elected in 2006. The measures include mandatory sentences for certain crimes, removing the two-for-one credit for time served before a trial and an end to the "faint hope" clause, which lets some inmates serving life sentences apply for parole after 15 years, instead of the standard 25.
Kevin Page, the Parliamentary Budget Officer, forecasted last week the cost of implementing just one of the Tories' tough-on-crime bills could be between $7 billion and $10 billion during the next five years. That could cost New Brunswick $250 million a year, Lamrock says.
"The toughest part has been engaging the federal government to be straightforward on the issue of what it will cost and, if they're really going to go down this road, how they're going to make sure provinces can meet those costs," he says.
"That's what we're getting increasingly worried about it, that they will land the problem on our doorstep and say 'Good luck with that.' Anyone who knows the current fiscal climate knows that would put programs at risk."
The federal government is responsible for writing Canada's criminal code, but the provinces must pay for two-thirds of the costs associated with enforcement and incarceration. Lamrock, who is also New Brunswick's social development minister, says that money would be better spent putting police officers on the streets and enhancing programs to reduce poverty.
Michael Boudreau, associate professor of criminology at St. Thomas University, says the Tory changes are a case of politics over policy.
"Most of this legislation is flawed and it's flawed because it's being driven by politics, not by common sense," he says.
An April poll from EKOS Research suggested Canadians' views on crime are hardening. Although a greater number of people still favour a preventative approach, the number supporting punishment as the main priority of the justice system has gained significant ground during the past decade. But Boudreau says the popular notion that crime is becoming more prevalent is a myth.
"One could argue that we're just as safe now as we were in the 1950s. There was no golden age of a crime-free society in Canada. It just never existed. The irony is we might actually be living in one now, in terms of the relative absence of crime." He says increasing sentences doesn't reduce crime rates or the likelihood someone will re-offend once they're released. Both Boudreau and Lamrock point to the U.S. as proof the approach is flawed.
"The American states are very good at underfunding schools and building all sorts of prisons," Lamrock says, adding that he's asked his department to see if the provinces will have any room for alternatives under the new laws. "If Ottawa tries to force a failed American approach on us then obviously we will comply with the law, but we'll use all the discretion we can under the law to protect what's working for New Brunswickers."