EXPERTS SLAM TORY CRIME BILL

One of the Top Courts Will Strike It Down, Says Comartin

OTTAWA - Ten days after Jane Creba was gunned down in the crossfire
between rival gangs in Toronto, Stephen Harper stood near the scene
and unveiled a tough-on-crime agenda to address what he called "the
tide of gun, drug and gang crime plaguing our cities."

The Conservative response to the 15-year-old girl's murder on Boxing
Day 2005 helped get them elected.

The lesson has not been lost.

Last month, the Harper government introduced a compendium of five
anti-crime bills that were introduced, but failed to pass, during the
last session of Parliament.

Among other things, the bill raises mandatory minimum sentences for
serious gun crimes and impaired driving, and requires those convicted
of three or more serious violent or sexual crimes to demonstrate why
they should not be designated dangerous offenders and jailed
indefinitely.

It also forces those charged with a variety of firearm offences to
show why they should not be denied bail.

Yet most experts say the Conservative bill is a solution in search of
a problem. They point out that crime rates in Canada have steadily
declined.

Even gun-related homicides -- the ostensible trigger for the
Conservative crackdown -- fell by 16 per cent last year.

Moreover, there's near universal agreement among criminologists that
mandatory minimum sentences and tougher penalties do little, if
anything, to reduce crime.

"I can't believe that even in the deep bowels of the governing party
anyone really believes that," says Ron Melchers, a University of
Ottawa criminologist. "It's quite clear that there's no deterrence, no
dissuasive value."

Some opposition MPs whose parties agreed unanimously three weeks ago
to rush the government's omnibus crime bill through a Commons
committee are now trying to delete a major provision that requires
offenders to prove they are not dangerous to society following a third
conviction for designated crimes.

The clause would violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms because it
would require judges to presume convicted people should be locked away
for life unless the offender could demonstrate otherwise, NDP MP Joe
Comartin told the Commons on Friday.

"This section will not survive a charter challenge," he said, adding
the NDP wants to delete the so-called "reverse onus" aspect of the
legislation.

It essentially puts the onus on a convicted person to prove they are
not a dangerous offender rather than requiring the prosecution to
prove its case for the designation.

"We are going to have tremendous litigation on this and at the end of
the day one of our superior courts, or even the Supreme Court of
Canada, will strike this section down," said Comartin, a former lawyer
from Windsor.

Justice Minister Rob Nicholson argued most Canadians would support the
bill, saying only a "narrow and proportionate" list of the 12 most
violent and sexual offences would trigger a dangerous offender
designation.

"They will be presumed to be a dangerous offender unless they can
prove otherwise," he told the House.

The bill, titled the tackling violent crime act, is an amalgamation of
five bills that had not made their way through the House before
Parliament was prorogued last September.

The bill also includes new mandatory minimum sentences for crimes
involving firearms, introduces tough new bail provisions for gun
crimes, allows for urine and other body-fluid samples for drivers
suspected of being impaired by drugs and raises the age of consent for
sexual activity from 14 to 16 years.

NDP MP Paul Dewar said his party was unable to get the amendment
passed in committee and argued Parliament should not rubber-stamp
legislation because the minority government wants it passed quickly
for political motives.