TOUGH ON CRIME? KIND OF

Opposition Leader Stephane Dion's new policy stance on law-and-order
issues has been widely accused of incorporating a "flip flop" on a
high-profile Conservative measure that would change the way our
criminal justice system treats arrestees accused of gun crimes. The
Conservatives' Bill C-35 would put a "reverse onus" on such suspects:
They would have to prove to a judge that they presented no flight
risk or danger to society before being freed on bail to await trial.
No longer would the burden of proof be on prosecutors to prove why
they should not be eligible for release.

Mr. Dion is facing something of a bum rap here. Even before this
week, it was the formal Liberal position that there were good
arguments in favour of a reverse onus in bail hearings for gun
crimes. (The reverse onus was actually introduced in 1992 for other
serious offences; it seems anomalous in retrospect that gun crimes
weren't included to begin with.)

Mr. Dion's new announcement is -- what's the right way to put it? --
a clarification, not an outright reversal. Of course, that also means
it's not really news, and it probably shouldn't be taken as a sign of
either rank jelly-spined cynicism or a laudable conversion to the
cause of toughness on crime. But the Liberal reaction to the original
introduction of Bill C-35 rewards study. It is a fine miniature
example of the party's characteristic tepidity and muddle-headedness
on justice issues.

The Liberal point man on C- 35 was Brian Murphy, a former mayor of
Moncton and a member of the Commons justice committee. In February --
with Mr. Dion ensconced as opposition leader -- Mr. Murphy proclaimed
that C-35 was "a good bill in principle," even one in the best
Liberal traditions.

But virtually his entire response to the bill was consumed with
nitpitcking. Mr. Murphy complained that C-35 was part of a larger
campaign of "scaremongering" designed to undermine Canadians' faith
in the justice system. He declared that "The bail system works" and
needs nothing more than a little "tweaking." He grumbled that judges
sometimes impose harsh penalties on convicted criminals, and that "We
need to balance the story" of pervasive leniency in Canadian justice.
He fretted, despite the vetting already given to existing reverseonus
provisions by the Supreme Court, that the Conservatives had not
sought a formal opinion on C-35's constitutionality from the Justice
Minister. He moaned that the Conservatives might be keeping a handful
of accused criminals off the streets with C-35 but seemed to be doing
very little to stem the influx of illegal firearms across the U.S.
border (never suggesting how this might be done). He grumbled about
the extra cost of imprisoning defendants who would otherwise be out
on bail. And he pointed out, oleaginously, that reverse onus
provisions might not have prevented the Dec. 26, 2005, Jane Creba
shooting in downtown Toronto that had been so instrumental to their
introduction; the accused shooter, after all, might have been able to
meet the reversed burden of proof.

All of this he did, with Mr. Dion's presumed consent and
encouragement, in the course of supporting C-35 "in principle." But
it has to be said that such a litany of lily-livered qualms makes for
an awfully funny sort of support, and we see no indication that Mr.
Dion's announcement this week changes anything. With friends like
these, do tougher gun laws have any need of Liberal enemies?