Despite Liberal pivot, Conservatives to keep pressing for tougher crime measures

Minister of Justice, Attorney General of Canada and Minister Responsible for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency Sean Fraser speaks during a press conference in Ottawa, on Thursday, Oct. 23, 2025. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Spencer Colby

OTTAWA — The Conservative Party has spent years accusing the Liberals of being too lenient on crime. Under Prime Minister Mark Carney, the Liberal government’s justice policy has taken a markedly tougher approach — but the Conservatives say it’s not enough and they have no intention of changing tack.

“Absolutely not,” said Conservative justice critic Larry Brock in response to a question about whether the party will change its messaging.

While Brock says the three justice bills put forward by the Liberal government this fall don’t go far enough, other critics say some of the measures they include could be unconstitutional.

Challenges under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms are “quite likely,” said Shakir Rahim, director of the criminal justice program at the Canadian Civil Liberties Association. He added his group is “actively considering” bringing court cases forward.

In the fall, the Liberals introduced three justice bills — which have yet to be passed by Parliament — that would implement a long list of changes to the Criminal Code.

They include new intimidation and obstruction offences in Bill C-9, measures in Bill C-14 to make bail more difficult to obtain and to allow for consecutive sentencing for some crimes, and Bill C-16’s move to restore mandatory minimum imprisonment penalties.

While it’s a significant change in approach for the Liberals, Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre is still using the same lines he campaigned on in this spring’s election, when he pitched a crackdown on crime.

“Canadians no longer feel safe on our streets. Liberal hug-a-thug and catch-and-release policies continue to privilege violent criminals over law-abiding citizens. Only Conservatives will restore a justice system that keeps families safe and criminals behind bars,” Poilievre posted on X this week.

“The messaging will not change,” Brock said.

One of the bills introduced by the Liberals, Bill C-14, would make it harder to get bail for a variety of crimes — including some vehicle theft, extortion and human trafficking offences — by imposing a reverse onus on bail. That would move the burden of proof from the prosecutor to the accused, meaning they would have to justify being granted bail.

Brock said Bill C-14 won’t be effective because it doesn’t repeal the principle of restraint.

In a law passed in 2019, the Liberals codified a “principle of restraint” affirmed in a 2017 Supreme Court case. The bill emphasized the release of detainees at the “earliest reasonable opportunity” and “on the least onerous conditions,” based on the circumstances of the case.

Brock said when he was a Crown prosecutor, judges or justices of the peace would often point to the principle of restraint and “they always erred on the side of following the direction given by the Liberal government.”

He said that he’s made the point to the justice minister that “until such time as we completely repeal the principle of restraint, we are going to have problems in our bail court.”

When Bill C-14 was introduced this fall, Fraser said the legislation would “clarify” the principle of restraint and ensure that it does not apply in reverse onus scenarios.

Rahim said there are constitutional concerns with the reverse onus provisions in the bill. The Supreme Court has ruled that a reverse onus is only constitutional within a narrow set of circumstances, and there has to be a clear justification for it, he said.

“And we have not seen the government explain why it is the case that reverse onuses are justified for the broad spectrum of offences they outline,” he said.

While the government has said the bill is targeted at repeat and violent offenders, the reverse onus provisions would apply to anyone, regardless of their criminal record, Rahim said.

“I would anticipate that they will be challenged on that basis,” he added.

The last of the Liberals’ three justice bills to be tabled, Bill C-16, would restore all mandatory minimum imprisonment penalties found unconstitutional by the courts, with a safety valve meant to guard against future court challenges.

That safety valve would give judges the ability to impose a less severe sentence in circumstances where the mandatory minimum penalty would be considered cruel and unusual punishment.

The Conservatives take issue with that provision.

“You can’t argue that mandatory minimum penalties are appropriate for a number of very serious offences when you give permission to judges right across this country to subjectively apply their own lens,” Brock said. “You can’t have it both ways.”

A Conservative government would use the notwithstanding clause to impose mandatory minimums for some offences, he said.

Rahim warned that, instead of creating certainty, the safety valve will lead to more litigation — a prediction also made by University of Toronto law professor Kent Roach, who has previously represented the CCLA.

“You’re going to see more arguments at trial about whether this particular offender should be exempted from the mandatory sentence,” Roach predicted.

The bill may make “mandatory sentences Charter-proof,” he said, “but it’s also going to result in much more litigation to determine whether they can be constitutionally applied to particular offenders.”

To reduce the number of cases being tossed out due to delays, Bill C-16 would also require courts to consider remedies other than a stay of proceedings. The CCLA says that violates the Charter right to be tried in a reasonable time.

Under a framework set out by the Supreme Court of Canada, an unreasonable delay is generally presumed if criminal proceedings — from the charge to conclusion of a trial — exceed 18 months in provincial court, or 30 months in superior court.

The main remedy for a violation of the Charter right to timely justice is a halt to the proceedings. The new justice bill would require courts to consider other remedies.

Rahim said the bill would set a bad precedent for future governments.

“There’s a very good reason why it’s not Parliament’s job to decide what the remedy is for a Charter violation, but it is the job of the courts,” he said.

Brock said his party will support “a lot” of the provisions in Bill C-14 and the “vast majority” of provisions in Bill C-16.

“But I’ve highlighted some of the areas that are deeply concerning … so we need to strengthen to ensure that these bills work for the benefit of all Canadians,” he added.

He gave his party credit for pushing the Liberal government to change.

“Anything to do with criminal justice, I will take the pleasure of knowing that my advocacy, the advocacy of our leader, the advocacy of our party in conjunction with strong stakeholder support, have finally convinced this so-called new Carney Liberal government to prioritize the safety and protection of Canadians,” he said.

Anja Karadeglija, The Canadian Press