Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T13:25:59.676Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Criminal Justice Policy during the Harper Era: Private Member’s Bills, Penal Populism, and the Criminal Code of Canada

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 December 2017

James B. Kelly  and
Kate Puddister
James B. Kelly
Affiliation:
Professor Department of Political ScienceConcordia [email protected]
Kate Puddister
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor Department of Political ScienceUniversity of [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

During the 2015 Maclean’s election debate, Stephen Harper commented, “we have more private member’s legislation that has gone through Parliament under this government than multiple governments before us.” This statement is borne out by empirical evidence: more private member’s bills (PMBs) have become law during Harper’s time in government, compared with most previous parliaments. However, PMBs are subject to less analysis than government bills and do not receive legal scrutiny by the Department of Justice, potentially implicating the protection of rights. Moreover, while one might assume that PMBs concern innocuous local and/or specialized interests, many Harper era PMBs effect substantive legal change to national issues like criminal justice policy. This paper examines the law and order trend in PMBs and addresses the following: why would the PMO under Stephen Harper, noted for its centralized control over all aspects of public policy, permit backbench MPs a role in criminal justice policy, through PMBs?

Résumé

Durant le débat électoral organisé par le magazine Maclean’s en 2015, Stephen Harper a déclaré : « Plus de projets de loi d’initiative parlementaire ont été soumis au Parlement pendant notre gouvernement que pendant bien d’autres gouvernements avant nous. » Cette déclaration se base sur une évidence empirique. Effectivement, un nombre plus important de projets de loi d’initiative parlementaire ont éventuellement eu force de loi durant le gouvernement de Stephen Harper comparativement aux gouvernements antérieurs. Toutefois, il faut savoir que ce type de projets de loi n’est pas assujetti à des analyses aussi poussées que les projets de loi du gouvernement. De plus, les projets de loi d’initiative parlementaire ne subissent pas non plus l’examen juridique approfondi du ministère de la Justice, lequel tient compte de la protection des droits. Par ailleurs, on présume souvent que les projets de loi d’initiative parlementaire portent sur des questions pointues et anodines, alors qu’en réalité, plusieurs de ces projets de loi apportent des changements substantifs à l’égard de questions pouvant avoir des répercussions majeures à l’échelle nationale, comme par exemple, les politiques en matière de justice pénale. Durant l’ère Harper, le nombre de projets de loi d’initiative parlementaire a augmenté considérablement. Le présent article se penche sur la tendance en matière de loi et d’ordre en ce qui concerne les projets de loi d’initiative parlementaire et tente de répondre à la question suivante : pourquoi le cabinet du premier ministre Stephen Harper, connu pour son contrôle centralisé sur tous les aspects des politiques publiques, a permis à de simples députés de jouer un rôle crucial dans l’élaboration des politiques en matière de justice pénale par l’entremise des projets de loi d’initiative parlementaire?

Keywords

criminal justice policyHarper erapenal populismcriminal justice reformparliamentlegislative studiesprivate member’s billspolitiques en matière de justice pénaleère Harper« populisme pénal »réforme de la justice pénaleParlementétudes législativesprojets de loi d’initiative parlementaire
Type
Articles
Information
Canadian Journal of Law and Society / La Revue Canadienne Droit et Société , Volume 32 , Issue 3 , December 2017 , pp. 391 - 415
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Law and Society Association / Association Canadienne Droit et Société 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Bill C-311 was originally introduced by Jack Layton as a private member’s bill in 2006 and was reintroduced by Bruce Hyer in 2009 before he left the NDP caucus in 2012. After a brief stint as an Independent, the Speaker of the House of Commons would recognize Hyer as the second Green Party MP in 2013.

2 Stephen Harper, Maclean’s National Leaders Debate 2015 (August 6), Segment Three: Democracy, Part Two.

3 Peter H. Russell, The Harper Decade: A Miserable Ten Years, www.theharperdecade.com/blog/2015/4/20/peter-russell.

4 Blidook, Kelly, “Exploring the Role of ‘Legislators’ in Canada: Do Members of Parliament Influence Policy?” The Journal of Legislative Studies 16, no. 1 (2010), 32–56.Google Scholar

5 Blidook, Kelly, Constituency Influence in Parliament: Countering the Centre (Vancouver: UBC Press, 2012), 98–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

6 Department of Justice Act, R.S.C, 1985, c. 31 (1st Supp.), s. 93; 1992, c. 1, s. 144(F).

7 Evan Sotiropoulos, “Private Members’ Bills in recent Minority and Majority Parliaments,” Canadian Parliamentary Review (Autumn 2011), 34–35.

8 Pratt, John, Penal Populism (London: Routledge, 2007), 12–20;CrossRefGoogle Scholar Roberts, Julian V., Stalans, Loretta J., Indermaur, David, and Hough, Mike, Penal Populism and Public Opinion: Lessons from Five Countries (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), 5–6;Google Scholar Green, David, “Penal Populism and the Folly of ‘Doing Good by Stealth’”, The Good Society 23, no. 1 (2014), 77.Google Scholar

9 James R. Robertson, The Evolution of Private Members’ Business in the Canadian House of Commons (Library of Parliament, Parliamentary Information and Research Service, September 22, 2005), 10–14.

10 Robertson, 10–14.

11 Alexandre Lavoie (Committee Researcher), Subcommittee on Private Members’ Business of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, Evidence (No. 1), 1st Session, 42nd Parliament (Thursday, March 24, 2016), 1.

12 Interview with the Hon. Boudria (May 11, 2016). Don Boudria held several positions during the Chrétien government in relation to government business: Chief Government Whip (1994–96), and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (1997–2002). During the Martin government, Don Boudria chaired the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

13 Bruce Cheadle, “Tories back record number of private member’s bills,” Globe and Mail, May 8, 2013; Jennifer Ditchburn, “Private Member’s Bills: Backbench Success Story or Strategy?” The Canadian Press, March 7, 2014; Aaron Wherry, “The little guy’s big chance: private member’s bills are have a moment in Ottawa – at least, if you’re a Conservative MP,” Maclean’s, October 6, 2014.

14 Samara Canada, ‘It’s My Party’: Parliamentary Dysfunction Reconsidered, 21.

15 Alison Crawford, “Public business through private member’s bills,” CBC (May 2, 2012).

16 Sean Fine, “Major Tory crime bills get scant scrutiny,’ The Globe and Mail (August 29, 2014).

17 Tonda MacCharles, “Private member’s bills cut corners on lawmaking, say critics,” The Star (May 10, 2012).

18 Webster, Cheryl Marie and Doob, Anthony N.. “US punitiveness ‘Canadian style’? Cultural Values and Canadian punishment policy,” Punishment & Society 17, no. 3 (2015): 309–14.Google Scholar

19 Ibid., 17.

20 Roberts et al, Penal Populism and Public Opinion, 8.

21 Marian Sawer and David Laycock, “Down with Elites and Up with Inequality: Market Populism in Australia and Canada,” Commonwealth & Comparative Politics 47, no. 2 (2009): 133–34.

22 Quoted in Sawer and Laycock, 141.

23 Bélanger, Éric, “Issue Ownership by Canadian Political Parties 1953–2001,” Canadian Journal of Political Science 36, no. 3 (2003): 539–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

24 Lisa Kerr and Anthony N. Doob. 2015. The Conservative Take on Crime Policy, 3–6. www.theharperdecade.com/blog/2015/8/17/the-conservative-take-on-crime-policy

25 Indeed, the Supreme Court has recently struck down two mandatory minimums introduced by the Harper ministry in R v. Nur (2015) and R v. Lloyd (2016).

26 Conservative Party of Canada 2004, Demanding Better: Conservative Party of Canada, Platform 2004, 36. http://www.cbc.ca/canadavotes2004/pdfplatforms/platform_e.pdf

27 Conservative Party of Canada 2006, Stand Up For Canada: Conservative Party of Canada Federal Election Platform 2006, 22. www.cbc.ca/canadavotes2006/leadersparties/pdf/conservative_platform20060113.pdf

28 Conservative Party of Canada 2011, Here for Canada: Stephen Harper’s Low-Tax Plan for Jobs and Economic Growth, 45. https://www.poltext.org/sites/poltext.org/files/plateformes/can2011pc_plt_en_12072011_114959.pdf

29 Ibid., 45 (emphasis in original).

30 Conservative Party of Canada 2015, Protect our Economy: Our Conservative Plan to Protect the Economy, 119. https://www.poltext.org/sites/poltext.org/files/plateformes/conservative-platform-2015.pdf

31 We reviewed all criminal justice policy bills passed as government bills by the Chrétien and Martin governments (35th to 38th Parliaments) and compared their titles with criminal justice policy bills passed by the Harper government. The use of neutral titles for government bills is a continuation of past practices that was abandoned by the Harper Conservatives.

32 In some instances, the names of the bills were also misleading, and at times, the titles did not accurately reflect the intended effect of the bill. For example, the proposed Bill C-53 “Life Means Life” appears to convey that Canada does not already have life sentences, when this is simply incorrect. We thank an attentive reviewer for reminding us of this important point.

33 Dave Snow and Benjamin Moffitt, “Straddling the divide: mainstream populism and conservatism in Howard’s Australia and Harper’s Canada,” Commonwealth & Comparative Politics 50, no. 3 (2012): 271–92.

34 Donald J. Savoie, “The Rise of Court Government in Canada,” Canadian Journal of Political Science 32, no. 4 (1999), 635.

35 James B. Kelly, “Bureaucratic Activism and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms: The Department of Justice and its entry into the Centre of Government,” Canadian Public Administration 42, no. 3 (1999), 476–511.

36 Hennigar, Matthew, “Conceptualizing Attorney General Conduct in Charter Litigation: From Independence to Central Agency,” Canadian Public Administration 51, no. 2 (Summer 2008): 193–215.Google Scholar

37 Jennifer Bond and Adam Dodek, “The Promise and Peril of Executive Responsibility for Rights Protections: Section 4.1 of Canada’s Department of Justice Act,” The Consideration of Rights in the Policy Making Process: What Enhances their Influence and What Leads to their Disregard? Madrid, June 14, 2015, 2015, 9 (paper on file with author). The Trudeau government has continued the Harper practice of an independent legal services unit to advise the PCO, as the Counsel to the Clerk and the Legal Operations/Counsel unit still exist.

38 Privy Council Office, A Drafter’s Guide to Cabinet Documents (2013) at 8: “If drafters are including a legal risk assessment as a consideration, they should indicate the likelihood of a legal challenge being initiated, as well as the likelihood of the challenge being successful. If there is an appreciable likelihood of success, the MC (memoranda to cabinet) should also note the likely remedy to be ordered.” The 2013 version is currently in use, and this practice has continued under the Trudeau government. www.pco-bcp.gc.ca/docs/information/publications/mc/docs/dr-guide-eng.pdf

39 Bond and Dodek, 9.

40 Subcommittee on Private Member’s Business of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, Number 001, March 24, 2016, 1.

41 The 2011 Vancouver Stanley Cup riots broke out in downtown Vancouver on June 15, 2011. In the process of the riots, approximately 140 people were injured, and over 100 people arrested. Following police investigation, almost 900 charges were laid against 301 people.

42 Bruce Cheadle. “Tories back record number of private member’s bills,” Globe and Mail, May 8, 2012.

43 Canada. 2011a. House of Comments Debates, November 17, 5041.

44 Canada. 2011b. House of Commons Debates (November 17), 3246.

45 Section 63 concerns unlawful assemblies; section 64 concerns riots.

46 Section 351(2): everyone who, with intent to commit an indictable offence, has his face masked or coloured or is otherwise disguised is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years.

47 The redundancy of C-309 was noted by several participants in the policymaking process such as Irwin Cotler, LPC (Mont Royal); Francoise Boivin, NDP (Gatineau); Thomas Mulcair, NDP (Outremont); and Professor Dr. James Stribopoulos.

48 Canada. 2012a. Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights (May 8).

49 Canada. Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, May 1, 2012.

50 Canada. Senate Debates, May 23, 2013, 4011.

51 Roberts et al. Penal Populism and Public Opinion, 8.

52 Green. “Penal Populism and the Folly of ‘Doing Good by Stealth’”, 77.

53 Steve Sullivan. “A Sloppy Attempt at Parole System Reform,” iPolitics (March 12, 2014); Ivan Zinger. “Conditional Release and Human Rights in Canada: A Commentary,” Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice 54, no. 1 (January 2012): 117–35.

54 Public Safety Canada. Harper Government Reinforces Support for Victims of Crime, May 8, 2013. www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/nws/nws-rlss/2013/20130508-en.aspx

55 Canada. House of Commons Debates, May 23, 2013, 131.

56 Canada. House of Commons Debates, April 30, 2014, 4776.

57 Canada (Attorney General) v. Whaling (2014) SCC 20, [2014] 1 S.C.R. 392.

58 Sean Fine. “Conservatives Crime Bill Endangered by ‘Administrative Error,’” Globe and Mail, August 28, 2014.

59 Sullivan. “A Sloppy Attempt at Parole System Reform.”

60 Canada. Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security (February 27, 2014), 1.

61 Pratt, Penal Populism, 16–17.

62 Roberts et al. Penal Populism and Public Opinion, 65.

63 Canadian Criminal Justice Association. 2014. Brief to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security (December).

64 James Bonta, Tanya Rugge, Terri-Lynee Scott, Guy Bourgon, and Annie K. Yessine. “Exploring the Black Box of Community Supervision,” Journal of Offender Rehabilitation 47, no. 3 (2008): 248–70.

65 Mia Rabson, “Raitt’s shot at Manitoba MP Joy Smith caught on tape,” Winnipeg Free Press, June 9, 2009.

66 David Taras and Christopher Waddel, “The 2011 federal election and the transformation of Canadian media and politics,” in How Canadians Communicate IV: Media and Politics, ed. David Taras and Christopher Waddel (Edmonton: Athabasca University Press, 2012), 72.

67 Department of Justice, “Government Supports Private Member’s Bill, the Criminal Organization Recruitment Act.” Media Release, May 1, 2012, “The Honourable Rob Nicholson, P.C., Q.C., M.P. for Niagara Falls, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada announced that the Government’s support for a Private Member’s Bill, the Criminal Organization Recruitment Act, sponsored by Parm Gill, M.P. for Brampton-Springdale. ‘Our government is committed to keeping our streets and communities safe, which is why our government will vote in support of this Private Members’ Bill,’ said Minister Nicholson. ‘I applaud Parm Gill for this efforts to help protect youth from the threat posed by organized crime groups.’”