Today marks the close of Victims and Survivors of Crime Week in Canada. With a name like that, you’d think our government actually cared about victims and survivors of crime.
You’d be mistaken.
Commemorating is one thing, but actually implementing the necessary reforms to prevent violent criminals from re-emerging onto our streets to victimize and re-victimize, over and over again? That’s, apparently, a step too far.
For his part, Pierre Poilievre tried to make the treatment of those convicted of multiple counts of first-degree murder an election issue. He proposed using the notwithstanding clause to get around a Supreme Court of Canada decision that overturned what former Prime Minister Stephen Harper tried to do: ensure that anyone convicted of more than one count of first-degree murder receives consecutive, not concurrent, sentences.
There is a big difference.
With the former, three convictions of first-degree murder mean you serve 25 years before parole eligibility for each one, or 75 years. With the latter, you serve them concurrently or all at the same time, 25 years.
In 2011, the Harper government gave judges the authority to implement consecutive life sentences, but in 2022, the Supreme Court of Canada deemed concurrent life sentences for multiple murderers “cruel and unusual punishment” and struck it down. Chief Justice Richard Wagner wrote in his decision: “By depriving offenders in advance of any possibility of reintegration into society, [the 2011 law] shakes the very foundations of Canadian criminal law.”
Poilievre and the Conservatives—now once again relegated to Opposition—can say what they want, but my experience is that when it comes to the treatment of killers with multiple victims, it makes no difference which party forms the government because these offenders always get away with murder. Such is the mantra with the Canadian justice system and its concern about rights and rehabilitation for everyone, including the worst among us.
Let’s assume that the most notorious multiple killer in recent times—Osama bin Laden—unleashed his 9/11 havoc not on the World Trade Center in New York City, but on the 72-storey Bank of Montreal building in Toronto. Two planes fly into it, and the whole thing comes tumbling down with 3,000 lives lost.
Let’s also assume—this is a stretch with the state of our armed forces—that Canada sends a crack force into Pakistan and finds bin Laden. But instead of killing him as the Americans did, they bring him back to Canada to face justice. This is where the fiction ends and we return to reality.
Canadian style.
Under the current state of affairs, bin Laden gets convicted of 3,000 counts of first-degree murder, but those sentences are served concurrently—at the same time—making him eligible for full parole after 25 years. But three years before then, he’s eligible for other types of early release: day parole, escorted temporary absence (ETA), and unescorted temporary absence (UTA). If granted his UTA, on the very same day, he can also apply for work release—work or community service outside the institution. After all, the man has his rights, and there is always the chance of rehabilitation.
A lawyer walks past the courthouse in Montreal, Wednesday, July 12, 2023. Christinne Muschi/The Canadian Press.
So here’s the question. Would Canadians be comfortable with this? I doubt it, and that means the Supreme Court of Canada is hopelessly out of touch with mainstream society on the issue.
What kind of criminal justice system do we have for offenders who kill more than once? Let’s explore more reality.
Vlado Maljkovich was serving a life sentence for killing his wife and daughter; he was a double murderer. Correctional Services Canada, which is responsible for federal penitentiaries, had to pay him $5,000 in damages for exposure to second-hand smoke. No, I’m not making this up. The next year, the correctional system adopted a no-smoking policy, but how successful it’s been is hard to say.
How about repeat drunk drivers who kill?
A long time ago, Charlie Hart was driving while drunk and killed two people, and for that, he lost his license for three years. But two years later, he was again charged with drunk driving, and many times after that, but he didn’t do any federal time until 20 years after his first conviction, with a sentence of four years. However, he got paroled after seven months and was given an identification card with the wrong name and wrong date of birth, which allowed him to get a new driver’s license, and out he went driving again. Later, he received the harshest sentence in Canadian history for impaired driving: one year for mischief and five years for refusing a Breathalyzer test. And what did he do to deserve that honour?
Thirty-nine convictions for drunk driving.
Keep in mind that a six-year sentence in a Canadian penitentiary means you’re eligible for parole after two years. I realize that, technically speaking, Charlie Hart was no mass murderer, but tell that to the families of his victims.
In 1982, serial killer Clifford Olson was convicted of 11 counts of first-degree murder, all the sentences served concurrently.
In 1995, Paul Bernardo was convicted of two counts of first-degree murder, both sentences concurrent.
In 2019, Alexandre Bissonnette was convicted of six counts of first-degree murder and six counts of attempted murder in the mosque shooting in Quebec City. The Crown asked for a life sentence of 150 years without parole eligibility; the judge settled on five 25-year life sentences served concurrently and another 15 years for the sixth count—a total of 40 years before parole eligibility. But after the Supreme Court of Canada decision, his sentence was effectively reduced, and he would henceforth serve those terms concurrently. He is now eligible for parole in 2042 when he is 52.
Same thing with Justin Bourque, who in 2014 was convicted on three counts of first-degree murder for killing three members of the RCMP in Moncton, New Brunswick. He is now eligible for parole in 2039 at age 49. Prior to the Supreme Court of Canada decision, he would have been eligible at age 99. Then we have John Paul Ostamas, who killed three homeless men, Derek Saretzky, who killed three people, one of them a two-year-old, and anyone else convicted of more than one count of first-degree murder.
In simple mathematics, this is what it means. No matter how many people are murdered by a killer, once that first conviction is processed, the other victims don’t count.
Mark Carney and his new government were elected on a change mandate—they have the latitude to fix this sorry state of affairs into something that aligns with what most Canadians claim to want: a tougher justice system.
