Liberals propose rollback of Trudeau-era laws with “tougher bail” bill

The federal Liberal government is moving to roll back several of its own Trudeau-era justice reforms with new legislation to toughen bail and sentencing laws.

Source: Facebook (Sean Fraser)

The federal Liberal government is moving to roll back several of its own Trudeau-era justice reforms with new legislation to toughen bail and sentencing laws and to “clarify” the Criminal Code’s “principle of restraint,” which directs judges to release offenders as early as possible and under the least onerous conditions.

Justice Minister Sean Fraser unveiled Bill C-14 on Thursday, the proposed Bail and Sentencing Reform Act, which would amend more than 80 sections of the Criminal Code and revisit measures introduced under Bill C-75.

The legislation would seek to introduce stricter bail conditions and longer sentences for repeat and violent offenders, a marked departure from the approach taken in previous Liberal reforms.

Although Fraser did not explicitly reference them, the bill would effectively reverse key elements of Bills C-5 and C-75, which had relaxed bail and sentencing provisions.

In his own words,

“Canada’s new government is introducing sweeping reforms to make bail laws stricter and sentencing laws tougher for repeat and violent offending,” a government statement said, framing the changes as a response to growing public concern over violent and repeat crime.

Under the new bill, bail would become “harder to get” for accused repeat or violent offenders. It expands reverse onus provisions, meaning an accused would have to show why they should be released, and directs judges to weigh risk factors such as random or unprovoked violence and outstanding charges. In such cases, stricter conditions, including weapons bans, could be imposed.

The bill would also impose tougher penalties for violent and repeat crimes, including car theft, break and enter, extortion, and arson. It proposes requiring consecutive sentences for certain offences, served one after another rather than concurrently, though whether such provisions are enforceable remains uncertain.

Judges have long had discretion to impose consecutive sentences under the Criminal Code. However, the mandatory application of consecutive terms has been ruled unconstitutional when it results in extreme cumulative penalties.

In R. v. Bissonnette (2022), the Supreme Court struck down mandatory consecutive parole ineligibility periods for multiple murders, finding they violated section 12 of the Charter, which protects against cruel and unusual punishment, by effectively eliminating any realistic chance of release.

Enforceable or not, the proposed changes would mark a significant shift from the Liberals’ earlier emphasis on rehabilitation and decarceration.