 |
| John L. Hill |
This proposed legislation aims to make significant changes to Canada’s bail and sentencing laws to keep violent and repeat offenders in custody for longer.
Key points in the bill include stricter bail measures. Police and courts are instructed not to release accused individuals if doing so could endanger victims, witnesses or the public. Judges are now required to consider whether alleged crimes involved random or unprovoked violence before granting bail.
The reforms follow several high-profile cases where individuals on bail committed serious violent offences, providing anecdotal support for keeping more people, supposedly presumed innocent, behind bars. Cases often cited include the murders of Bailey McCourt and OPP Const. Grzegorz Pierzchala. McCourt, a Kelowna, B.C., woman, was allegedly murdered by her ex-husband, who had just been charged with assault and released on bail. Critics of the current system also refer to the man convicted of murdering Pierzchala in December 2022, who faced numerous assault charges and was on bail at the time of the officer’s death.
Although statistical evidence shows that violent crime is decreasing, it seems that the perception of insecurity is more persuasive than real danger.
The proposed legislation also suggests sentencing changes. Courts will be expected to hand down harsher penalties for repeat and violent offenders. The bill introduces consecutive sentences, requiring offenders to serve multiple prison terms one after the other instead of at the same time. The idea of imposing consecutive sentences reminds us of the Supreme Court’s decision in R. v. Bissonnette, 2022 SCC 23, when a previous “get tough on crime” government sought consecutive sentences for multiple murders.
Although Bill C-14 addresses lesser crimes than murder, it is important to recall the principles outlined by the Supreme Court when striking down the legislation. The court unanimously declared the law unconstitutional because it was grossly disproportionate and incompatible with human dignity. Even for the most heinous offences, Canadian law must allow for a “realistic possibility of release” as long as the offender is alive. Denying that chance or delaying eventual release to the point where it becomes meaningless treats the person as beyond redemption, which the court stated is contrary to Charter values.
The hope of eventual release is the main motivator for prisoners to participate in rehabilitative programs in our penitentiaries. Extending sentences through consecutive mandatory terms diminishes the incentive to engage in behavioural modification programs. Ultimately, these prisoners will be released. Do we truly want them to return to the streets, possibly in worse mental state than when they first entered prison?
The call for stricter measures was often heard loudest from police associations and retailers. It is therefore understandable that Bill C-14 panders to these critics. New aggravating factors include increased penalties for offences against first responders, retail theft and damage to essential infrastructure.
The new provisions also place restrictions on house arrest. The bill ends conditional sentences (house arrest) for certain sexual assault and child sexual offences.
Once enacted, Bill C-14 will require the expansion of provincial jails and lockups. It will raise the cost of keeping a prisoner in jail rather than requiring the individual to comply with strict conditions while remaining in the community. The provisions will likely silence those who have criticized the federal government and now must cover the expenses under the provincial government’s jurisdiction.
Bill C-14 seemingly aims to be tough on crime, but it lacks the mechanisms to ensure that those detained awaiting trial receive the support they need to prevent further harm after they are released.
Perhaps critics of the bill would be less harsh if there were new provisions to expand community options that could prevent crime. These measures might include projects to reduce homelessness, increase access to psychiatric care and improve drug treatment facilities.
The major flaw in Bill C-14 is that it maintains the outdated approach of focusing on “what” was done instead of addressing the underlying “why” it was done in the first place.
John L. Hill practised and taught prison law until his retirement. He holds a JD from Queen’s and an LLM in constitutional law from Osgoode Hall. His most recent book, Acts of Darkness (Durvile & UpRoute Books), was released July 1. Hill is also the author of Pine Box Parole: Terry Fitzsimmons and the Quest to End Solitary Confinement (Durvile & UpRoute Books) and The Rest of the (True Crime) Story (AOS Publishing). Contact him at johnlornehill@hotmail.com.
The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the author’s firm, its clients, Law360 Canada, LexisNexis Canada or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.
Interested in writing for us? To learn more about how you can add your voice to Law360 Canada, contact Analysis Editor Peter Carter at peter.carter@lexisnexis.ca or call 647-776-6740.