Once again, the Conservative government is offside with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the majority of Canadians.
Last week, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) ruled 6-3 that the government’s new mandatory minimum sentences of three years for a first offence of possessing an illegal loaded gun and five years for subsequent offences were unconstitutional.
The first bit of business we need to get to here is that this was not a review of the law by the Court. By the coverage so far, that’s what it seems like.
No, this was an appeal of lower court decisions by two Toronto men, who were convicted of possession of a loaded, prohibited gun.
The SCC upheld those convictions, but to hear Conservatives talk about it you’d think the Court had just let loose the entire prisoner population of people who had committed gun crimes.
The second order of business is to stop the hyperbole. On Power and Politics April 14, Paul Calandra, the parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister said this decision shows “the Conservative Party stands alone in wanting to protect Canadians.” Conservatives need to stop doing that; it may play to the base, but it is really pushing the country to an unhealthy polarity.
That is an egregious, slanderous and insulting assertion. In fact, the law that introduced mandatory minimums in 2008 was an omnibus crime bill that Liberals and New Democrats supported some elements of, such as more severe penalties for repeat offenders.
The Liberals in government have also introduced mandatory minimums for certain crimes.
Using mandatory minimums too liberally is a problem, though, because they have the potential to sweep up, as the Supreme Court decision read, “people with little or no moral fault” and who pose “little or no danger to the public.” It gave an example of a person who inherits a firearm and doesn’t get around to relicensing or disposing of it right away.
At the time the Conservatives were pushing Bill C-2, they were warned over and over again, by the opposition and by experts that certain provisions, such as mandatory minimums would eventually run afoul of the Charter. But instead of cooperating with the Opposition in committee and crafting a constitutional law, they rammed this thing down Canadians’ throats. Now that it is struck down, we are going to end up paying for it in countless appeals and court costs. This from a government that claims to respect taxpayers.
Another big problem with this government is it consistently legislates on ideology completely ignoring evidence—actual evidence that is, not evidence from ridiculously partisan think tanks and right wing evangelical “educational” institutions.
Mandatory minimums do not work. Pretty much everywhere else in the world that has tried it, most importantly the United States, is repealing these laws just as our government is cramming them through.
And they don’t even stand by their legislation after it gets quashed. Parliament is allowed to pass unconstitutional laws. All they have to do is invoke the “notwithstanding clause.”
Why don’t they? Is it political? Do they stand to gain more politically from bashing the courts and lying about opposition motives than they do by standing by their so-called principles and protecting the laws they consistently and erroneously claim “the vast majority of Canadians” agree with them on?
If they truly believe in the crap they are peddling they should invoke Section 33 and take their chances with the electorate.
They won’t. I’m sure their base is already receiving the fundraising letters related to this latest setback.
One last thing, Calandra also claimed that their “tough on crime” approach is working because crime is declining. They really need to stop doing that too. There is no evidence that correlates this government with lower crime. In fact, crime has been declining in Canada for decades.
