1 week Ago By [email protected] (Mark Ramzy)
OTTAWA—Pierre Poilievre is pitching a tough-on-crime agenda he says will fix nearly a decade of Liberal “madness” and “hug-a-thug” policies. At the heart of his plan is a call for the return of mandatory minimum sentences which, if implemented, would set up a showdown between a Poilievre government and Canada’s court system. In a pledge to usher the “biggest crackdown on crime in Canadian history,” Poilievre this week promised a “three strikes” law that would mandate that people with three convictions for a wide-range of “serious offences” face a mandatory sentence of at least 10 years and up to life in prison, with no chance at bail, probation, parole or house arrest.
He has also proposed mandatory minimum sentences targeting trafficking, extortion and repeat car thieves, and a new offence for intimate partner violence, including severe bail conditions and mandating first-degree murder charges for the killing of a partner or a child. And he said he would reverse several Trudeau government laws that repealed some mandatory minimum sentences and reformed bail conditions to speed up court processes. Both parties are offering duelling agendas to crack down on crime — and attacking each other for It is all part of his rallying cry to supporters and part of his pitch to increase support in areas like the GTA.
The problem? Poilievre could face the same trouble as former Conservative prime minister Stephen Harper, who implemented a similar crime agenda only to have much of it later struck down by the Supreme Court. “The general view that they took was that it’s unconstitutional to take away all discretion from judges,” said criminal defence lawyer Frank Addario. Courts have already struck down mandatory minimums for handgun offences, child pornography offences, and a host of other offences that were part of Harper’s criminal reforms, he said.
“Our system is based on this idea that there’s a process by which we determine whether you’re guilty of a crime,” said Jennifer Quaid, an associate professor at the University of Ottawa’s faculty of law. “The problem with mandatory minimum is where it ties the hands of the judge.” Quaid said that mandatory minimums in many cases are seen as “beyond what is proportionate,” and have been ruled a violation of charter protections against “cruel and unusual treatment or punishment” by the state and the protection of “life, liberty and security of the person.
” Poilievre, for his part, has argued the latter constitutional guarantee also applies to victims and should be prioritized. He made that case less than two weeks ago in reaction to a judge’s decision to grant a temporary injunction to allow 10 supervised consumption sites in Ontario continue operating until a final decision is made in the court challenge against the Doug Ford law. Injunction says sites can be open past the April 1 deadline, including the one in Toronto’s “Charter rights to life, liberty and security of the person means that kids should not be walking around stepping on dirty needles or at risk that an erratic fentanyl addict might lash out and kill a child,” Poilievre said.
At the same time, Poilievre has sought to place the blame squarely on Liberal government policies he has pledged to repeal. “We can’t blame just the judges,” he said in a December interview with Alex Pierson, a conservative radio host. “We have to blame the politicians and the NDP, Liberal caucuses that passed these catch and release, hug-a-thug laws.
” But the Liberal government’s reforms were largely in response to what the courts were saying, said Emmet Macfarlane, a professor of political science at the University of Waterloo. “There might be grey areas in that not every law is guaranteed to be struck down,” Macfarlane said, citing, as an example, that there already exists mandatory minimum sentences for crimes like first-degree murder. “But as a general rule, it’s quite clear for over a decade now that the courts are not going to be deferential or offhand about this stuff.
” Addario said he is also concerned about a Poilievre government pitting itself against the courts, much like Harper, whose government had public spats with judges. “The fact that he is saying this during a campaign suggests that he knows that it’s more about attracting support from people who are afraid of crime and are worried that they could be victims of violent crime,” Addario said, calling on Poilievre to refer any contentious criminal justice law to the Supreme Court before passing it, if he becomes prime minister. Still, Poilievre could opt to implement his agenda and fight it in court afterwards.
It could take several years before it is struck down in full or in part. He could also go for the nuclear option — invoke the notwithstanding clause — an unprecedented and controversial move Poilievre previously said he would use but has since appeared to walk back. The Conservatives, however, said in a statement that their proposals “should not require” the use of the notwithstanding clause because they are meant to uphold Canadians’ right to life, liberty and security of person.
The clause allows provincial or federal governments to override certain Charter rights. “At the federal level, the notwithstanding clause has never been used,” Macfarlane said. “It would be breaking that glass.
” Indeed, crime has gone up , and the Liberals, too offered their own public safety proposals this week, including more resources for border officials and restricting bail provisions for repeat offenders of certain offences — an issue the party has long been attacked on by Conservatives. But legal experts contend harsher criminal penalties are not effective at preventing crime. “Harshness by itself has never improved the control of criminal law,” said John (Jack) Major, who served on the Supreme Court of Canada from 1992 to 2005.
“That’s not enough.” Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha.
Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy .
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page ..
