One result is that Canada's policy development in recent years has tended to follow a middle path between the more extreme and radical route in the United States, as indicated by policies such as three strikes legislation, and the more conservative European reforms. Canada's policies with respect to punishment have been affected by a number of influences, including the presence of advocacy groups, the reporting by news media of high-profile tragedies such as the Montreal massacre of 14 young women, the restrictions of budgetary constraints, and the intervention of several Federal elections in which crime became an important electoral issues. In this respect, penal policy development in Canada echoes trends in other jurisdictions. The Federal Government is responsible for policy development, but not the administration of those policies, and has tried to pursue a dual-track policy. One branch of this policy has sought to reduce the use of imprisonment and thereby to cut criminal justice costs. The other track has sought to placate public and political pressure on the government by introducing more repressive penal policies, including severe minimum penalties and higher maximum penalties for young offenders. Thus, penal policy has tended to reflect political realities and expediencies more than rational policy development informed by the results of research or an analysis of best practices in other jurisdictions. In addition, the Federal Government has continually tried to strike a balance between competing special interest groups; policy development has also been episodic and reactive. Overall, Canada has charted a middle course between the United Kingdom and the United States. Notes and 28 references (Author abstract modified)