Mandatory minimum sentences in Canada are imposed on convicted individuals for certain criminal offences. The inception of the Criminal Code in Canada in 1892 brought about these criminal offences that carry mandatory minimum sentences. This means that sentences imposed on individuals convicted of certain offences can't be less than the corresponding mandatory minimum sentence for that offence.
History shows that in 1892 only six offences carried mandatory minimum sentences. However, there have been many amendments to mandatory minimum sentencing legislation since then. This was evident from 2005 to 2015 when many laws were passed according to a "tough on crime" agenda.
The government in 2012 introduced The Safe Streets and Communities Act, also known as the Omnibus Crime Bill, which mandated stricter mandatory minimum sentences for numerous offences. The tough-on-crime agenda was widely criticized as it limited the discretion of sentencing judges more than ever before. There was also a significant increase in penalties, where offences already carried mandatory minimum penalties. These penalties were increased in length and severity.
The "Tough on Crime" agenda resulted in strict punishment for criminals. Offences for growing more than five marijuana plants were met with a minimum of 6 months of imprisonment. The punishment increased with larger numbers of plants. Involvement in the production of more harmful substances, like heroin, cocaine in any form, and methamphetamines, led to mandatory minimum sentences of at least two years in prison.
There was also an increase in the severity of sentences for impaired driving offences. In 2005, the mandatory minimum for a first offence escalated from a $600.00 fine to one of $1,000.00. For second offences, sentences went from 14 days of imprisonment to 30 days. A third, or higher, offence now carries a minimum of 120 days of imprisonment.
It is notable that a mandatory minimum of 90 days in prison was previously assigned to a third, or higher, offence. Judges had the prerogative to allow offenders to serve their sentences on weekends. This is no longer legally permissible when the penalty exceeds 90 days.
There has been a recent shift towards more moderate sentencing principles within the mandatory minimum legislation in Canada. The argument is that sentencing for criminal offences should be left to the discretion of the courts. The belief is that courts are in the best position to judge the context of a criminal offence and impose an appropriate sentence, specific to that offence.
The Supreme Court of Canada added weight to this argument by striking down two of the "tough on crime" sentencing principles as unconstitutional. In the first case, the court ruled that a mandatory minimum sentence of one year in prison for a drug offence contravenes the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It was deemed to be cruel and unusual punishment. The judgement stated that the mandatory sentence cast too wide a net over a wide spectrum of offenders, imposing strict sentences on those whose conduct didn't warrant such a sentence.
The court suggested, "If Parliament hopes to maintain mandatory minimum sentences for offences that cast a wide net, it should consider narrowing their reach so that they only catch offenders that merit that mandatory minimum sentence...In the alternative, Parliament could provide for judicial discretion to allow for a lesser sentence where the mandatory minimum would be grossly disproportionate and would constitute cruel and unusual punishment."
In the second case, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that a person who is denied bail because of prior convictions should be able to receive credit for time served before sentencing. Usually, a person denied bail can get 1.5 days of credit for each day spent in pre-sentence custody, reflecting what are usually poorer custody conditions.
Under sentencing reforms introduced in 2009, a person denied bail due to their previous conviction was not eligible for enhanced credit. More changes reflecting lenient sentencing principles are expected in the future. Current Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, has advocated for a review of the changes in our criminal justice system and sentencing reforms over the past decade. The aim? To assess the changes, ensure safety in our communities, get value for money, address gaps, and ensure that current provisions align with the objectives of the criminal justice system.
