Questions About the Conservative and Liberal Punishment Agendas

"No one disagrees that criminals must be punished".

- 2011 Liberal Party Platform, p. 54

In a political climate where 'soft on crime' and 'dumb on crime' have become common parlance in policy discussions on how to address the complex conflicts and harms in our communities that we call 'crime', there is an absence of leadership, honesty and courage amongst the 'political class' to address the serious issues that have been appropriated by the penal system and its corollaries (read 6 March post).

On one hand we have the Conservatives, who stir up fear in a manner that would have us believe we live in Gotham City, and only the policies of Batman (Rob Nicholson) and Robin (Vic Toews) can protect us and meet the needs of victims, which our caped crusaders seem to principally measure by the length of prison sentences given to those who harm others.

It is an approach that proposes a prison for almost every challenge faced by governments across the country (e.g. the legacy of colonization, drug addiction, mental illness, poverty, political dissent, refugee claims, etc...).

On the other hand we have the Liberals, who have long shouted the line "prisons and planes" versus "the real priorities of Canadians" (read 4 September 2010 post). With the costs of the Conservative punishment agenda becoming visible, the Liberals have found the courage - albeit fleeting at the best of times with their constant reassurances to the electorate that they too are 'tough on crime' - to rightfully point out the problems of addressing a myriad of issues through incarceration.

However, in the next breath they have said a Liberal government would not revisit the punishment bills passed in the last five years (read 4 April article by Jessica Murphy) that, even by triggering other levers in the system (read 30 May 2010 post), would threaten the relative stability in Canada's rate of imprisonment over the past half-century (Doob and Webster, 2006).

How can one commit to not placing an emphasis on prison construction, if one is not committed to revisiting some of the laws that granted will likely not enhance the levels of safety in our communities in the long-term, but will stack bodies in our penal institutions like sheets of plywood? This perplexing position has raised some debate in the Twitterverse amongst commentators and journalists such as Andrew Coyne, Dan Gardner and Rob Tripp, as well as others in the media (read today's editorial by the National Post).

With the NDP and Green Party platforms still to come, one is left to wonder if anyone will step up to the table and think any of their taglines through by providing policy positions that are carried-out to their logical (or illogical) conclusions. For now, I'll focus my attention on the Conservatives and Liberals, and the questions I feel need to be asked to the leaders and members of both parties in the weeks ahead. They are questions that require full answers and not the kind of obfuscation that Canadians have become accustomed to that led to the downfall of the previous government (read March 26 post).

Questions for the Conservatives

1) If you form government, will you re-table the punishment bills that were recently killed when the federal election was called?

2) If yes:

- What are the capital and operational costs of the proposed penal policies to the federal government who is responsible for incarcerating individuals serving sentences of two-years-plus-a-day?
- What are the capital and operational costs of the proposed penal policies to the provinces and territories who are responsible for incarcerating individuals serving sentences of two-years-minus-a-day and those awaiting trial or sentencing in remand?
- What evidence exists to suggest that the proposed penal policies will enhance safety in our communities in the short- and long-term?
- What evidence exists to suggest that the proposed penal policies will meet the complex needs of the victimized and criminalized?
- What less costly and more effective prevention and community-based alternatives will not be pursued should your proposed penal policies divert resources towards the construction of penal infrastructure and the warehousing of additional prisoners?

3) You have announced CSC's short-term accommodation strategy for absorbing the influx of new prisoners serving longer sentences that involves the construction of new units on the grounds of aging penitentiaries that others, including the 2007 CSC Review Panel that you commissioned, have said need to be replaced (read 14 February post), but what are the costs associated with CSC's long-term accommodation strategy that was to be tabled for consideration last month (read 17 March post)?

Questions for the Liberals

1) You propose a number of measures to address some of the challenges individuals face that may contribute to their involvement in 'crime' such as the availability of affordable housing, deficits in education and poverty, but you do not propose any specific measures to address drug addiction, mental illness and the overrepresentation of aboriginals in our prisons in your platform. What would a Liberal government propose to address these gaps in your platform and how much would those initiatives cost?

2) You critique the Conservatives actual and projected prison construction spending, yet provide no specifics on how you would clawback such expenditures or reduce the influx of new prisoners. This raises a number of questions:

- Can we assume that a Liberal government would continue to pursue CSC's short-term accommodation strategy initiated by the Conservatives?

- Can we assume that a Liberal government would not pursue CSC's long-term accommodation strategy that was to be submitted to the Conservatives last month?

- If one or both of these strategies were abandoned, what would a Liberal government do to curb the prison growth associated with the Conservative punishment bills that were passed in the last five years that is likely to occur?

- How would a Liberal government collaborate with the provinces and territories, who have expressed concerns over the costs of implementing federal punishment bills?

- What evidence exists that your policies will prevent victimization, and meet the complex needs of the victimized and criminalized?

- Will a Liberal government consider less costly and more effective prevention and community-based alternatives to prevent victimization, and meet the complex needs of the victimized and criminalized?

Stay Tuned

Given the costs and potential implications for affected individuals and communities, hopefully these questions and others will be raised in this unfolding election campaign. Canada is at a crossroads (read February 23 post) and those who want to represent us in Parliament need to provide voters with an honest picture of the course they intend to chart if elected.

If members of the media don't raise these questions, pick-up the phone and call your candidates. It is, after all, our communities that these policies will be affecting and our money that they will be spending to support their punishment agendas.