A Meaner Canada: 'Junk Politics' and the Crime Bill

The omnibus crime bill won't make us any safer, but it could make Canada meaner.

Canada’s new Parliament is poised to reshape Canada’s criminal justice system and, in significant ways, Canada itself. Within 100 sitting days of its resumption Parliament will pass an omnibus “tough on criminals” bill that represents the biggest change to our justice system in recent memory. But these changes are coming with disturbingly little controversy or opposition. They are not part of some so-called hidden agenda. This is what most or at least many Canadians voted for and, among those who did not, few seem much worried. Political opposition has been muted. Who wants to be seen as soft on crime, soft on criminals, concerned about inmates? Whether through our active support or our indifferent silence we are all participating in a watershed moment for Canada without so much as a tough conversation. And it matters; it matters for our safety and it matters for the kind of country we are becoming. Surely one key test of any society is how we treat the most vulnerable and, even more particularly, the most despised. Justice policies offer a glimpse into the soul of a nation.

Before getting to the substance, let me admit that a very significant part of my public service career was spent in the justice sector, in what was then the Ministry of the Solicitor General (now Public Safety), the Justice Department and the National Parole Board. Let me add that in all the time I worked on these issues I never met an official, elected or unelected, who was “soft on crime”, not ever, not once. We had of course many debates, many disagreements, but without exception those charged with policy and practice cared about victims and their families, wanted to prevent crime when they could and reduce its economic and human costs when they could not. Policies and practice were guided by three imperatives: public safety – what does the evidence tell us about what works to make our homes and streets safe; freedom – how to ensure a measured response that protects our civil liberties and constrains the state and holds it accountable when our freedom is at stake; and justice – what is a just, that is, proportionate and humane punishment, when a citizen is found guilty of a crime. These are difficult questions and can rub up against each other but, on balance, we have done pretty well. Of course the system must adapt to changing times and new knowledge, but rates of crime and violence have been falling for about three decades. That does not permit complacency but nor does it suggest a need for a fundamental change of direction.

So, where are we now headed? And why?

As in any omnibus legislation, the bill contains some good things, some bad things, some very bad things, and some things that need clarification. And all of this deserves debate. The National Post did a pretty thorough and balanced review of the elements which I won’t try to reproduce here. But the direction of these proposals, on top of legislation passed in the previous session, is clear: more focus on punishment, greater use of prison as a penalty, increased police powers, and fewer protections of our privacy and civil liberties. Mandatory minimum sentences will increase prison time not only for sexual predators but for those convicted of growing a few marijuana plants. Even as police discretion is increased, the discretion of judges will be further constrained, making it harder for them to fit the penalty to the circumstances, to address aggravating and mitigating factors. House arrest will be off-limits even for some property offences. Young Offenders provisions will be toughened up. Pardons will be more difficult to get. Surveillance of our internet activity will be easier and without warrant, and preventive detention of those we fear might commit terrorist acts will continue with the process to determine its use to be secret and therefore outside public scrutiny.