Ottawa to argue for tougher parole rules
A Conservative-era law that allows longer periods of parole ineligibility for people convicted of multiple murders is constitutional, the federal government will argue before the Supreme Court this spring.
The top court will hear arguments in March about the constitutionality of a 2011 provision introduced by the Harper government that allows judges to stack consecutive periods of parole ineligibility for those convicted of murdering more than one person.
The case involves Alexandre Bissonnette, who pleaded guilty to murdering six people and attempting to kill six others at the Islamic Cultural Centre in Quebec City in 2017.
Convicted murderers are automatically sentenced to life in prison, and are ineligible to apply for release on parole for a set period. Prior to 2011, that period was 25 years for first-degree murder, regardless of how many people they had killed.
At his trial, the judge ordered Bissonnette to serve at least 40 years in prison before he became eligible to apply for parole, a decision that was appealed by both the defence and the Crown.
Ibrahima Barry, Mamadou Tanou Barry, Khaled Belkacemi, Aboubaker Thabti, Abdelkrim Hassane, and Azzedine Soufiane were killed in the attack on the mosque.
The Quebec Court of Appeal ruled in favour of Bissonnette, finding that the 2011 provision constituted cruel and unusual punishment, and reinstated the 25-year parole ineligibility period.
The Supreme Court appeal pits those who argue in favour of the provision against groups who say it is akin to the death penalty, which was abolished in Canada decades ago.
The top court’s ruling may also have an impact on another highprofile case. The sentencing hearing of Alek Minassian, who was convicted of murdering 10 people in the Yonge Street van attack in Toronto in 2018, is now on hold until the Supreme Court delivers a decision in the Bissonnette case.
While the Trudeau government has said it wants to dismantle Harper-era criminal justice policies, it also argues that the 2011 provision is constitutional, as it doesn’t require judges to stack consecutive periods of parole ineligibility but merely gives them the option to do so.
“In some cases, the accumulation of periods of ineligibility is fair and appropriate,” says a factum filed at the Supreme Court by the attorney general of Canada.
Several provincial attorneys general, along with the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police and the Toronto Police Association, also argue the provision should be kept in place.
The National Council of Canadian Muslims argues in its factum that the pre-2011 sentencing regime provided a “discount” to people convicted of multiple murders. It argues that stacking parole ineligibility periods is constitutional, and that the number of victims and the circumstances of the crimes should be taken into account at sentencing.
“What many in Quebec are asking about is this question of justice, and whether the victims of the Quebec City mosque shooting will have their justice,” council CEO Mustafa Farooq told the Star.
Legal and civil rights groups maintain the 2011 provision is cruel and unusual punishment, and that the parole system already ensures that those who continue to pose a risk to society are not released from prison.
“The prospect of life without hope — where the only ‘release’ a person can hope for is their own death — begs the question: what is worse, the death penalty or a sentence designed to make a person wish for death?” says the factum from the Canadian Civil Liberties Association.
“I think this particular policy falls under this umbrella of Harper-era, draconian, Americanized sentencing policies, and I wish our current government saw it that way as well,” CCLA lawyer Stephanie DiGiuseppe said in an interview.
A statement from the Department of Justice said the attorney general’s stance on the 2011 provision “is consistent with the longstanding principle” that it defends the constitutionality of federal legislation when it is challenged in the courts.