Canadian politics has long been thoroughly reduced to sloganeering and sound bites. The decline of whatever capacity we had to sort through issues with an interest in substance has been hastened by turns to microtargeting, deliverology, hyperbole, extremely-online partisans boosting mis- and disinformation, and politicians revelling in all of the above.
All parties are guilty of it, but the Conservatives under Pierre Poilievre have taken things up a notch, with the Tory crusade against the Trudeau government’s “reckless Liberal catch-and-release parole policies” serving as the latest example.
If ever there were a time during which you’d think we might want to take a moment to think things through and get policies right, it would be now. Criminal justice policy, for instance, is a good example of a high-stakes file in which the issue quite literally features matters of life and death. But what we get from the Conservatives is a string of emotionally manipulative campaign slogans about terror and the “worst crime wave in Canadian history”, for which a citation would be welcome, but unlikely, from Poilievre.
Last week, Statistics Canada reported that the severity of crime in the country was up on aggregate for the third year in a row, growing two per cent in 2023. This is a problem and it ought to be treated as such, though the data is worth reading in detail. As politicians fixate on headline-grabbing crimes – for instance car theft, hate crimes, and homicide – it’s worth asking what the data actually says.
Hate crimes are, indeed, up. So is fraud, extortion, car theft, robbery, and shoplifting. Breaking-and-entering was down five per cent. And while vehicle theft is a rising problem, it’s roughly 50 per cent lower than it was 25 years ago. The same can be said for robberies – way down from the 1990s and early 2000s. Homicide – one case of which Poilievre exploited last week to target the Liberals – was down 14 per cent from 2022. We are, most certainly, not in the midst of the country’s worst-ever crime spree, whatever that means.
The data doesn’t suggest that crime isn’t a problem, but it does ask us to consider what is a problem, where, and why. But that’s complex — far more complex than a slogan. So we’re unlikely to be indulged with any such reflection. Instead, what we get is the Conservatives misrepresenting crime data for political gain, a cynical if familiar manoeuvre that’s unlikely to produce better public policy. Poilievre is all-in on “jail, not bail” The old school tough-on-crime approach is a classic Tory stand-by, but it doesn’t sufficiently reckon with concerns such as whether the party’s policies would be constitutional, which they may not be, or what the data even tells us about the effects of current bail policy on recidivism and public safety.
Instead of a proper debate or deliberation based on verified information and reasons, we are getting anecdotal interventions from self-interested politicians. If anything, this is disrespectful to the public, to victims of crime, and offensive to anyone who thinks turning a few pages and taking in some information is important before overhauling one the country’s most complex files.
Last year, defence lawyer Michael Spratt took Poilievre to task for his claim that the Liberals and NDP had caused a crime wave, calling it “nonsense” and noting that crime data is “notoriously complex.”
“What is clear is that, historically speaking,” wrote Spratt, “we live in one of the safest periods in history. Canada's Crime Severity Index, a measure of the seriousness of police-reported crime, has decreased by 6 per cent in the last decade and a staggering 31 per cent since 2000.”
Regardless of the actual statistics, the Liberals took the bait late last year and toughened bail conditions. In doing so, they ceded the issue and the frame to the Conservatives in a bid to tackle public threats from repeat offenders with a reverse onus provision that requires the accused to bear the burden of proving they ought to be released. Whether the amendments to the Criminal Code will work? Who knows. Given this country’s incapacity to collect and analyse so much critical data, no one ought to hold their breath.
Writing in The Tyee last March, former Stephen Harper advisor and criminal law professor Benjamin Perrin argued against Poilievre’s promise to introduce potentially disastrous American-style mandatory minimum sentences, calling them “a grave policy failure and cheap politics,” and bringing the data to back up his claim.
Making good criminal justice policy requires that we gather and analyse data, spend time deliberating and debating, and leave aside the cheap politics. We’d be far better off having a sustained conversation about the carceral state, the roots of crime and its social and economic determinants, and how to address these deep and longstanding challenges.
That approach, of course, would be the way if politicians were interested in leading difficult conversations instead of pandering to the basest prejudices and knee-jerk reactions of the population. Instead, we’ll continue to get the same old sloganeering and rabble-rousing rhetoric and, in the end, will be left worse off for it.
Comments
Pierre "Snake oil Salesman" Poilievre is a dangerous man, as is the CPC as they have swung to the extreme right in many ways. On top of that, Pierre talks-the-talk, but has zero policies and when challenged, side-steps any questions. Crime has not been any worse than in the past, though we do have hot spots in Canada.
One thing that I can agree with to some extent, that allowing some offenders out on a parole or out on bale needs to be revisited. The current system is too trusting and lax in some cases, especially when domestic violence is involved.
Vote anyone but conservatives!
I hate the way these stupid tricks keep working decade after decade.
If I were in politics I would say to an interviewer "OK, quick take--who's the most 'tough on crime' country in the developed world? The United States of America, right? Now, who has the most violent crime in the developed world? Who has mass shootings every other day? Oh, again the United States! Go figure! All right, who's the most 'soft on crime'? That would be some of the Nordics. And, who has the lowest crime and the best rehabilitation rates? Oh, go figure, those Nordics.
So . . . why does Poilievre want US-style policies again?"
Should Poilievre win the next election as the polls seem to indicate, he may find his government will be forced to deal with a Kamala Harris-led American government. Stephen Harper had to interact with Barack Obama, both of whom shared a mutual dislike for each other. Harper also tussled with the Supreme Court which shot down several of his policies as unconstitutional, and the otherwise intelligent man succumbed to being petty and full of retribution toward "activist" judges as the result, and later toward anything remotely progressive, even when progressive policies were a good fit.
Poilievre has a big mouth and portrays his leadership style and potential policies as coming from some kinda empty headed tough kid in the schoolyard. One day he and his party will have to deal with real policies, events unfolding in real time and other governments as real adults.
The joke really is on him. If he and the Conservative shadow cabinet actually conducted themselves as adults today, espousing mature ideas and being proactive to solve genuine problems, they could assume more control over the centre where the majority of citizens live in this country. Their rise in the polls have nothing to do with Conservative ideas; it has everything to do with taking cheap shots at an unpopular Liberal Party leadership that failed to keep its promises over and again, and that chose to follow its own rhetoric with cobtradictory and counterproductive action to protect their corporate donors and lobbyists. Quiet behind the scenes subsidies for the fossil fuel industry are the biggest example of Liberal duplicity when it comes to their generous narrarive on climate policy.
When it comes to voting day in my riding it's ABC123 all the way. The Liberals have greatly diminished the things I would be happy to vote for. The NDP cannot seem to offer up a decent candidate with experience or one who wouldn't shoot herself in the foot with questionable political tactics in another venue. The Greens are a non-existant entity with no chance to gain power, and therein field fake space filler candidates. This leaves the simple act of voting against the increasingly disgusting Conservatives by calculating which progressive or centrist non-Conservative candidate has the best chances of winning a three-way contest, and crossing one's fingers.
The Liberals and NDP have a year to change out unpopular leaders, but that must also be coupled with changing their weak or hypocritical action plans. Fielding star candidates with credibility and integrity in battleground ridings would also greatly assist their chances to win.
Hope for the best, but prepare for a potential Dark Age.
Bravo to CNO and other indies for calling out PP's self serving BS. The commercial media is owned by big business conglomerates, the CBC is self censoring, and local media don't touch those topics because they don't want to lose the few advertisers they still have.