Fact-checking Wab Kinew's promises on crime during Manitoba party leaders' debate
NDP leader promised bail reform, criminal property seizures and more. How much is really possible?
There were promises to reform bail, pledges to seize property from suspected criminals and accusations Manitoba's Progressive Conservative government has been "hard on the people living in bus shelters but soft on the people supplying them drugs."
But experts say some of the comments NDP Leader Wab Kinew made as his opponents — Progressive Conservative Leader Heather Stefanson and Liberal Leader Dougald Lamont — grilled him on crime and safety during the only televised leaders' debate of Manitoba's 2023 provincial election race on Thursday warrant further scrutiny or lack key details.
The debate came a day after the release of polls from the Angus Reid Institute and Probe Research suggesting the NDP have a strong lead in the campaign.
So what did the perceived front-runner in the race leading up to Manitoba's Oct. 3 election say about how his party would address crime — and how does it stack up against reality?
WATCH | Party leaders on how they'd tackle crime and safety:
Bail reform
During the debate section on crime and safety, Kinew said "there's no need to wait for other levels of government to take action" on bail reform, promising to "implement bail reform at the provincial level" and "direct the Ministry of Justice to implement stronger conditions on bail to keep you safe in the community" within 100 days of being elected.
But that "oddly worded" statement doesn't quite reflect what power provinces have when it comes to affecting bail outcomes, said Brandon Trask, an assistant professor in the University of Manitoba's faculty of law.
WATCH | Kinew says he'd tackle bail reform in first 100 days as premier:
"I would say his comments were partially true. But, you know, [they] could be confusing to a number of individuals listening," Trask said.
That's because while a province's attorney general can in theory provide broad directives to provincial prosecutors, only the federal government has the power to make the kind of criminal laws that would actually change bail outcomes, he said.
Any directives also have to be based on objective legal criteria — "never ideology or political views," said University of Manitoba criminologist Frank Cormier.
And the final decisions are ultimately up to a judge — who a provincial government is not allowed to give orders to, said Michael Weinrath, a criminal justice professor at the University of Winnipeg.
Trask said he's also "a bit puzzled" about what directives an NDP attorney general might want to implement, since things like public safety are already considered in bail hearings.
Many of the current rulings that shape bail decisions have also been handed down by the Supreme Court of Canada — which wouldn't be possible for a provincial government to direct prosecutors to ignore, Trask said.
NDP spokesperson Rorie McLeod-Arnould said in an email later Friday the party's approach to bail reform will be guided by the National Police Federation's recommendations.
Those include "support for better data sharing among law enforcement, investments in rural broadband to improve bail monitoring and introducing standard qualifications for those who conduct bail hearings," the statement said.
Unexplained wealth act
Kinew said another step an NDP government would take to address crime is introducing an unexplained wealth act "that will mean if there's a gangster driving a $100,000 car, we're going to ask, 'How did you get that? And if you can't explain it, we will hold you accountable.'"
Trask said "the devil's in the details with something like this" and wondered how the proposal would differ from Manitoba's existing criminal property forfeiture unit, which allows the government to seize assets that are the proceeds of a crime or were used to commit one, even if the person involved hasn't been convicted of a crime.
Cormier said while the language political parties use during an election is "often not necessarily intended to be terribly scientific," what Kinew is describing sounds to him like something that would open up legal and human rights issues.
"We can't just decide that somebody driving a certain car is or is not a gangster," he said.
"Clearly we can't have police, you know, stopping everyone who's driving a very expensive car and saying, 'You need to explain to me how you got this.' That is obviously unacceptable in a free and democratic society."
NDP spokesperson McLeod-Arnould said the act would "complement existing criminal property forfeiture regimes" and "allow law enforcement to initiate investigations proactively of persons of interest and their assets, and require them to justify unexplained, excess wealth."
The statement also noted the party would consider lessons learned in British Columbia, which earlier this year introduced similar legislation.
PC record on addictions, prosecuting traffickers
More than once during the debate, Kinew accused Progressive Conservative Leader Heather Stefanson's government of being "hard on the people living in bus shelters but soft on the people supplying them drugs."
Weinrath said while he agrees the PCs haven't done enough to help people with addictions, he "would like to see the evidence" that they're not doing enough to crack down on traffickers.
Trask also characterized it as "a bit of a stretch" to claim a provincial government has been soft on dealers when provinces play such a limited role, noting provincial attorneys general aren't allowed to get involved in specific cases, and "the vast, vast majority" of drug prosecutions are done by federal prosecutors, not provincial ones.
Cormier said all that means it's ultimately up to police and prosecutors to determine how strenuously law enforcement goes after dealers — not the province.
"A provincial government can't be hard or soft — or anything else — on drug traffickers," he said.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
