Safety, Perception, and Institutional Trust
Canada is changing. For many, it no longer feels safe to walk alone after dark.
This perception has climbed sharply in recent years, and it reflects more than a momentary fear. It reflects a profound gap between how Canadians experience safety and how public institutions frame it.
A new survey from the Angus Reid Institute finds that 62 per cent of Canadians believe crime has increased in their communities over the past five years.
Only 17 per cent of respondents say they feel safe walking alone at night where they live, down from 32 per cent in 2015 and 23 per cent in 2022.
These shifts are dramatic, and they demand explanation.
At the same time, official data tells us a more complex story.
Statistics Canada’s most recent Crime Severity Index (CSI) shows that while certain categories have risen since 2020, overall crime levels remain below historical peaks.
That nuance often gets lost in headlines. But it matters because public confidence is not built on abstract indices. It is built on lived experience and trust in institutions to respond effectively when things go wrong.
The CSI is a composite measure that weights both the volume and seriousness of crimes reported to police. It is widely regarded as a more relevant measure of actual criminal activity than simple counts.
For many Canadians the sense that crime is rising is real, and that sense is growing.
Part of that sense comes from the lived reality of certain offences, including fraud and identity theft. According to the same Angus Reid polling, more than 80 per cent of Canadians report being targeted by an online or phone scam in the past two years.
These threats are often not captured cleanly in traditional crime statistics, but they shape people’s sense of safety just as powerfully as a visible break-in or an assault.
Shoplifting, another major category in recent public discourse, has also been climbing after pandemic lows, with many retailers reporting repeated theft and abuse.
The effect of these experiences is not just personal inconvenience. It bleeds into a broader sense of insecurity, especially when people see repeat incidents, insufficient enforcement, or weak outcomes from the justice system.
The revolving door justice system is often cited as a cause for the repeated sense that nothing is improving.
Another contributor to the sense of insecurity is how statistics are communicated. Bureaucratic nuance can sound like equivocation. Government statements that emphasize long-term trends can read to the public as dismissive of what is happening here and now.
When citizens feel that their everyday reality is not acknowledged, confidence in institutions erodes.
This is not to argue that Canada is overrun by crime. It is to say that public policy is failing to match public perception with credible response and communication.
We now live in a country where people think safety is declining, even when headline indices suggest a more mixed picture. The divergence between perception and reality is itself a policy problem.
And public policy cannot solve what it does not first understand.
So what is missing?
At least three elements are essential if we want to restore both public safety and confidence in our institutions:
Clear, transparent reporting of crime data, not only what is rising and what is falling, but how people experience it, including fraud, identity theft, and public disorder. The data must be interpretable by ordinary citizens without distortion or spin.
Targeted, accountable policy responses when shoplifting, fraud, or violent crime are rising in specific communities, there should be measurable, place-based strategies with benchmarks, review points, and public reporting on results.
Communication that acknowledges lived experience. This means politicians and public safety officials must speak honestly about both data and perception, instead of emphasizing abstract trends alone.
Canada’s institutions are not failing because they lack expertise. They are failing because they have not bridged the divide between what the data says, what people feel, and what the public expects.
Trust in public safety is not optional. It underpins everything from community engagement to economic activity, to willingness to cooperate with law enforcement.
If that trust is eroded by disconnects between perception and public policy, then we are not just dealing with crime. We are dealing with a deficit of legitimacy.
Legitimacy does not return on its own.