Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre speaks during a news conference in New Westminster B.C., on April 6.ETHAN CAIRNS/The Canadian Press
Pierre Poilievre says he would increase jail time for repeat violent offenders if the Conservatives are elected, promising a “three strikes you’re out” law to imprison people for a mandatory minimum of 10 years.
Mr. Poilievre has made longer sentences and stricter limits on bail a key pillar of the party’s election campaign and has promised the “biggest crackdown on crime” in the country’s history. But the three-strikes idea is not new, and the last prime minister to propose it, Conservative Stephen Harper, found much of his tough-on-crime agenda dismantled in the courts.
“It’s time to lock up the very small group of rampant criminals who are causing all the chaos,” Mr. Poilievre said Wednesday morning at an election campaign stop in Sault Ste. Marie, Ont.
Legal observers say details of the plans will face scrutiny in the courts if they become law.
Inside a Pierre Poilievre rally, where hope for change overshadowed the polls
The Conservatives have already promised that a government led by Mr. Poilievre would enable sentences of life in prison for fentanyl traffickers, for people convicted of multiple counts of human trafficking, and for people who import or export more than 10 illegal guns. On Wednesday, the Conservative Leader announced that his government would ensure some repeat offenders spend at least a decade in prison.
“Stop the crime” was the main theme of a Conservative rally Wednesday night in the Toronto suburb of Brampton, an important region for seats in the tightly contested federal election.
Mr. Harper in 2006 tabled three-strikes legislation but it failed to become law. The former prime minister, under whom Mr. Poilievre served, also passed laws requiring mandatory-minimum punishments for some crimes. The Supreme Court of Canada in the mid-2010s struck down a number of those sentencing minimums as unconstitutional.
“It didn’t make sense 15 years ago. It doesn’t make sense now,” said Mary Campbell, a lawyer and former senior civil servant at Public Safety Canada. “The proposal is going to be found unconstitutional – if it was ever made into law.”
The three-strikes promise follows an approach used in the United States, but academic research has shown it was not effective.
Benjamin Perrin, a law professor at the University of British Columbia, was a legal adviser to Mr. Harper in 2012-13 and has since renounced tough-on-crime measures as ineffective. On Wednesday, he highlighted a 2001 University of Chicago Journal of Legal Studies report that found an increase – not a decrease – in murders in states with three-strikes laws. There was “little evidence” of reduced crime.
Mr. Poilievre in January noted his plan for a three-strikes policy. On Wednesday, he indicated that the Conservative law would stop people convicted of three “serious” offences – the word was not defined – from getting bail, probation or house arrest, by jailing them for at least 10 years. Such people would also be designated dangerous offenders, making it more difficult for them to be released.
But the legal hurdle for much of Mr. Poilievre’s crime agenda is the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Section 12 protects people from cruel and unusual punishment. On this basis, the Supreme Court has struck down several, but not all, mandatory-minimum sentences from Mr. Harper’s time as prime minister.
Mr. Poilievre in the past has said that he would invoke Section 33 – the notwithstanding clause – of the Charter to protect his legislation. This clause overrides a number of rights, including the protection against cruel and unusual punishment. Mr. Poilievre has not directly addressed the use of the clause during the campaign.
Instead, he said Wednesday, speaking in French in response to a reporter’s question, that the three-strikes plan respects the Constitution and is necessary to defend the rights of all Canadians. He argued that the law would broadly protect Canadians and is thus compliant with the Charter’s Section 7, which states everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person.
“It would be charitable to call it a novel legal theory. It’s laughable,” said Ottawa criminal-defence lawyer Michael Spratt.
“People are rightly concerned about community safety and crime,” added Mr. Spratt. “It’s easy to pretend to solve difficult problems with shameless sloganeering.”
Opinion: Poilievre moves on to Plan C and brings out the guns
Boris Bytensky, a Toronto lawyer and president of the Criminal Lawyers’ Association, said it was a “predictable” promise on the campaign trail. He said a better idea would be a greater focus on enforcing violations of people who are out on bail.
Catherine Latimer, executive director of the John Howard Society, said evidence shows that tougher penalties typically do not deter crime and can make the justice system more expensive. The focus on minimum punishments is misplaced, she said.
“Judges, not parliamentarians, are best placed to consider the appropriate penalty,” said Ms. Latimer.
Liberal Leader Mark Carney, whose party plans a crime announcement on Thursday, said in Calgary on Wednesday that “the full force of the law should be applied and appropriately severe punishment put in place” for serious, habitual criminals.
He rejected the Conservatives’ three-strikes plan.