When violent crime rose in Manitoba in the early 2000s, no one really knew why. There were plenty of theories, but nothing that could be proven with evidence.
The courts weren’t doing enough to keep the most dangerous offenders behind bars, the “tough on crime” crowd charged. Bail was too lenient, community supervision of offenders was lax, there weren’t enough cops walking the beat and government wasn’t doing enough to combat the “causes” of crime, such as reducing poverty and tackling addictions and mental health, critics said.
There was probably a kernel of truth to all, or at least some, of the above. But no one could prove what was driving up crime rates.
Governments often take credit when rates fall and absolve themselves of blame when they rise. That’s politics.
In reality, the factors that drive criminal activity are far more complicated. It’s virtually impossible to link crime rates to any particular government policy or societal trend, at least none that can be proven with evidence.
Violent crime soared under former NDP premier Gary Doer in the early 2000s, as measured by Statistics Canada’s violent crime severity index. It jumped from 154.07 (the year before the NDP won government in 1999) to a high of 177.98 in 2009.
Can the escalation of violent crime be blamed on the NDP’s policies at the time? Not really. Government increased spending in areas often linked to crime reduction, such as more resources for education and health care, as well as new measures to combat poverty and addictions.
No one really knows why violent crime rose in the early 2000s. Similarly, no one knows why it started to fall in 2010 and hit a low of 127.90 in 2014.
There were no radical changes in government policy during those years, or in the years leading up to them.
Violent crime started to rise again in Manitoba in 2015, still under an NDP government. The upward trend continued after the Progressive Conservatives won government in 2016.
Violent crime in Manitoba has since skyrocketed. The severity index hit a fresh high of 210.93 in 2022. Was that the Tories’ fault? Is it because they were too “soft on crime?” Is it because they cut spending on front-line services and social programs? It’s a theory, but it’s an unproven one.
If that was the cause, or part of it, it doesn’t explain why violent crime rose in the early 2000s under an NDP government that ramped up spending in all departments. Also, why did it fall under former NDP government Greg Selinger?
Again, no one knows. Correlation — including who’s in government and how much they spend on courts, corrections, policing, crime prevention and social programs, or what changes they made to the criminal justice system, including bail or mandatory minimum sentences — is not causation.
So when the current NDP government is accused of being “soft on crime” because it cut or froze spending in some justice areas when it unveiled its first budget Tuesday, the public can take it with a grain of salt.
Spending in some areas typically linked to crime prevention, such as resources for health, addictions, education and poverty reduction, went up in the 2024 budget. There is also more money for public safety, including policing.
However, there are cuts and freezes in other areas (presumably to help reduce the massive deficit left behind by the Tories), such as prosecution, victim services and corrections.
The cuts and freezes to the latter are concerning at a time when violent crime has hit a 20-year peak. But will it have an impact on the crime rate? No one knows the answer to that.
The NDP is not any more “soft of crime” or “tough on crime” than the Tories. Each political party has taken similar approaches over the years to crime prevention, police funding, bail reform, court management and changes to corrections (including a move towards more restorative justice measures). And each has seen crime rise and fall under its watch.
Does that mean governments are powerless to fight crime, or the causes of crime? No. There are plenty of studies that attempt to identify the root causes, such as poverty, addictions, mental health, racism, the effects of colonialism, etc.
Any efforts to address those challenges will benefit society as a whole and probably reduce crime over time. But trying to make direct links between short-term government policy, or who’s in office, and crime rates is a mug’s game.
There may be good reasons why the NDP cut or froze certain parts of the justice budget, or maybe not. That will be further examined when the budget is scrutinized during the estimates process (when opposition MLAs get to question cabinet ministers at legislative committee meetings).
Either way, when the crime-rate numbers are reported over the next few years, no one will be able to prove with evidence whether they had anything to do with the 2024 budget or any other budget. Criminal justice is far more complicated than that.
tom.brodbeck@freepress.mb.ca
Tom Brodbeck
Columnist
Tom has been covering Manitoba politics since the early 1990s and joined the Winnipeg Free Press news team in 2019.