ORDER AND LAWS

IF there were any doubt that the Conservative government was serious
about the law-and-order agenda that it stumped the country with
during the last election campaign, Justice Minister Vic Toews put
those doubts to rest last week when he introduced the first two of a
series of bills dealing with crime.

One of the bills addresses the problem of conditional sentences and
will be widely welcomed by Canadians. Mr. Toews proposes new
sentencing guidelines that would limit conditional sentences -- which
impose house arrest or community service -- to fewer offences.

Judges would still have discretion in sentencing, but criminals who
commit crimes of violence or armed robberies, for example, will be
more likely to go to jail. Under Mr. Toews' proposed law, criminals
such as Ryan Sorenson, convicted in January of the late-night,
knife-point robbery of two young women, would perhaps not have been
given a conditional sentence by the Manitoba Court of Appeal, a court
that has been almost petulant in its adherence to the sentencing law
introduced by the Chretien government.

That can only be a good thing.

The other bill, however, is more problematic. It would impose harsh
minimum sentences for certain crimes.

For crimes involving firearms, a first-time offence would carry a
five-year minimum sentence, a second offence would carry seven years
and a third one 10 years. That is not unreasonable for gun crime
offences if courts and prosecutors will enforce it -- previous
minimum sentences for gun crimes were largely ignored or bypassed by
plea bargains.

The bill would also impose minimum sentences of 10 years for the use
of a gun during a sexual assault or in an attempted murder.

This bill may be a case of the Tories putting the emphasis on order
rather than law. Critics wonder whether the Supreme Court of Canada
would uphold such a regulation, suggesting that it may violate the
Charter rights of criminals.

It also violates common sense -- the circumstances of a crime should
have some influence on the punishment. More importantly, it raises a
serious question: Why are crimes committed with guns any worse than
crimes committed with other weapons?

Is a woman raped at gunpoint any more traumatized than a woman raped
at knife-point or threatened with a broken beer bottle?

How is it a greater crime to attempt to shoot someone than to attempt
to stab or strangle him? The intent is the same in all of these
circumstances, and surely that is the crime that the law should
address, not what method is used by the criminal.

Anti-gun laws are politically popular in Canada right now,
particularly in the political gold fields of Toronto, and the
Conservatives know this as well as the Liberals and the NDP -- the
last election was almost an auction of minimum sentence proposals
among the three parties.

But the problem is not guns per se -- although heavier sentences for
the possession of illegal handguns would be welcome.

The problem is violent crime, whatever method is used to commit it.
Mr. Toews should revisit this bill and rework it into a law that is
not just politically popular for its draconian dealing with guns, but
something that addresses the wider issue and something that will actually work.