Commentary
Justice issues are always of concern for Canadians, but they rarely draw much attention during federal elections.
Polling indicates crime and public safety didn’t even register in the top 14 issues for Canadians in this election.
The Conservatives had proposed policy items on this file prior to the election campaign. Tory Leader Pierre Poilievre has also made proposals for justice reform on the campaign trail, and it was refreshing to see both Poilievre and Liberal Leader Mark Carney address justice in their platforms this week.
However, both announcements fell short of what’s needed, and some of the proposals could be seen as playing to the leaders’ support bases rather than thoughtful suggestions for justice reform.
Carney placed most of his focus on firearms. He promised to
“reinvigorate” the gun buyback program the government created in 2020, which
has failed to draw many firearms and has stalled in its progress. Promising to double down on a failed program won’t have much impact on crime. Efforts to continue to ban legal firearms, then try to seize them, are based more on an ideology opposed to private firearm ownership rather than crime reduction.
Legally owned firearms are rarely used in criminal acts.
Carney also promised to have firearms licences revoked for people who have been convicted of violent crimes. The thing is, though, those laws are already on the books. Canada has a stringent licensing system which doesn’t allow firearm ownership among convicted violent criminals. He also talked about seizing firearms from people in situations of suspected domestic violence. Again, police already have that ability, and they use it. Raising the spectre of unchecked spousal abusers in possession of firearms helps galvanize voters, however.
Carney did make some good proposals too. He vowed to crack down further on crimes committed against children, including online exploitation. He took an indirect shot at pro-Palestine protesters by promising to introduce legislation to criminalize obstruction of access to places of worship and community centres. His promise to increase the RCMP and CBSA forces’ personnel by 1,000 members each was welcomed by law enforcement, and his vow to try and stem the flow of illegal firearms coming from the USA makes sense.
Poilievre, for his part, promised to implement a
“three-strikes” law for repeat violent offenders along with a plan to impose mandatory minimum sentences for certain crimes. These notions resonate well with citizens tired of reading stories of chronic offenders who have committed terrible crimes upon being released. Canada undeniably has a problem with identifying and properly incarcerating dangerous, repeat criminals. Poilievre’s approach to the issue may not be effective if put into practice, however.
Three-strikes laws are not new and have been attempted in several American jurisdictions. Unfortunately, while they
sound good on the surface, they haven’t proven to be very effective when they are imposed. The laws often lead to overcrowding in prisons and backlogs in the court system as appeals are filed. In California, the laws were a disaster as some people with relatively minor offences garnered unreasonably long sentences at times.
The issue of chronic offenders must be addressed, but it requires a more nuanced approach than mandatory minimum sentencing schemes. Judicial discretion is important as not all cases have the same circumstances. If one insists on going down that road, the first step would be to greatly increase national prison capacity, and that hasn’t been part of anyone’s platform yet.
Mandatory minimum sentencing and three-strike laws will likely run afoul of the Canadian Constitution as well. When asked about potential Charter conflicts with such laws a year ago, Poilievre implied that he may
use the notwithstanding clause. That could be effective, but having the government immersed in a protracted battle with its own courts isn’t a desirable scenario.
When push comes to shove, most citizens just want to be prosperous and safe. The rising cost of living and increased public disorder due to the opioid addiction epidemic both contributed to former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s fall from popularity.
The Conservatives and the Liberals have both made many specific proposals on how to tackle the rising cost of living and economic security. With public safety and crime, though, both parties should be taking the tougher road of proposing effective policies. That’s the nature of elections at times. Campaigners want to keep it simple. Kim Campbell was
pilloried for decades for saying that truth out loud over 30 years ago.
Whether it’s politically expedient or not, Canadians deserve substantive policy proposals for justice reform. We can be thankful that it was addressed, but we can’t let political shorthand on policies pacify us when we need thoughtful, achievable reforms.
Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.
