The first problem with Prime Minister Mark Carney’sproposed “tough on crime” legislationis that being tough on crime is not in the Liberals’ DNA.
The origins of this dangerous philosophy can be traced back to Oct. 7, 1971, when Canada’s then-solicitor general, Jean-Pierre Goyer, representing the Liberal government of Pierre Trudeau, rose in Parliament to announce a new approach for dealing with criminals.
“For too long a time now, our punishment-oriented society has cultivated the state of mind that demands that offenders, whatever their age and whatever the offence, be placed behind bars,” Goyer said.
“Consequently, we have decided from now on to stress the rehabilitation of individuals rather than the protection of society … Our reforms will perhaps be criticized for being too liberal or for omitting to protect society against dangerous criminals. Indeed, this new rehabilitation policy will probably demand much striving and involve some risks ….”
This view, it should be noted, was supported at the time by Progressive Conservative and NDP MPs.
Five decades later, this philosophy of elevating the hoped-for rehabilitation of the offender above other equally valid principles of sentencing such as deterrence, denunciation, the separation of offenders from society and reparations for the harm they have caused, has resulted in the lax criminal justice system we have today.
That includes the absurdly lax and secretive provisions even for dangerous, violent offenders under the Youth Criminal Justice Act, passed by the Liberal government of Jean Chretien in 2003, which replaced the Young Offenders Act, passed by the Trudeau government in 1982.
The second problem with Carney’s proposed legislation, if and when it becomes law, is that it will be administered by a criminal justice system that adheres to the governing philosophy of placing the rehabilitation of criminals above public safety.
For example, one of the provisions in Carney’s proposed legislation – to be introduced next week — would allow for consecutive, as opposed to concurrent sentences for certain crimes, so that those committing repeat offences would face longer time behind bars.
Supreme Court ruled mandatory minimum sentences unconstitutional
But in 2022, the Supreme Court of Canada struck down legislation passed by the Stephen Harper Conservative government in 2011, allowing for consecutive sentences for mass murderers as cruel and unusual punishment – for the mass murderers.
In a similar vein, after the Harper government introduced mandatory minimum sentences for some gun crimes, the Supreme Court ruled they were unconstitutional, based not on cases actually before it, but by constructing hypothetical – that is, imaginary – cases, where it ruled a minimum sentence would be cruel and unusual punishment in that case, and thus unconstitutional.
Another proposal in Carney’s legislation would place a reverse onus on the accused in some offences to demonstrate that releasing them on bail would not be a threat to public safety, as opposed to the Crown having to prove the accused’s release would constitute such a threat.
But when the previous Liberal government of Justin Trudeau enacted legislation placing a reverse onus in awarding bail on those accused of repeat violence offences involving gun crimes last year, then-justice minister David Lametti himself said its ability to do so was narrow and extremely limited by the Charter.
Finally, the fact is that on paper we already have plenty of laws with appropriate sentences to combat violent crime if the existing sentencing provisions were rigorously applied.
The problem is, they aren’t.
By law, federal offenders in Canada are eligible for full parole after serving one-third of their sentence, or seven years, whichever is less, save for certain crimes such as murder.
This makes a mockery of the sentences publicly announced in court.
To be fair, many of the provisions in Carney’s legislation – particularly on bail reform – have long been called for by police, mayors and premiers, and include other measures such as imposing harsher penalties for organized retail theft, restricting conditional sentences for a number of sexual offences and hiring 1,000 additional RCMP officers.
That said, while Carney has borrowed extensively from initiatives proposed by Pierre Poilievre and the Conservatives as he has on many other issues – for which the Conservatives deserve credit – they fall far short of what the official opposition would implement on issues such as bail reform.
They say Carney should scrap his proposed reforms and pass the Conservatives’ Jail Not Bail Act – Bill C-242 – they introduced in September.
“It’s time to repeal the Liberal hug-a-thug policies that have endangered Canadians and tipped the scales of justice in favour of criminals,” the Conservatives said. “Only Conservatives will scrap Liberal bail, make our streets safe and deliver a justice system that puts victims’ rights first.”
