Vote No
An Act to amend the Criminal Code (increasing parole ineligibility)
This bill amends the Criminal Code to allow judges to set a longer period of parole ineligibility—between 25 and 40 years—for offenders convicted of abducting, sexually assaulting, and murdering the same victim in the same event. It keeps the mandatory life sentence for murder but gives courts discretion, guided by a non-binding jury recommendation, to extend the time before an offender can seek parole. Judges must consider the offender’s character, the nature of the offences, and the circumstances of the crime when deciding the ineligibility period. The measure is narrowly tailored to extreme cases combining specified sexual offences, abduction/kidnapping offences, and murder against a single victim.
The bill prioritizes denunciation and incapacitation for the most extreme crimes but does not advance prosperity, productivity, or competitiveness, and it likely raises corrections and court system costs. There is also significant constitutional risk post-Bissonnette, which could trigger costly litigation and uncertainty for victims.
What evidence demonstrates that increasing parole ineligibility to as much as 40 years for these heinous crimes will measurably reduce violent crime, and how does that benefit compare to the increased long-term incarceration and healthcare costs?
How much additional capacity and funding will Corrections Canada require to house offenders serving decades longer before parole eligibility, and what safeguards are in place to ensure rehabilitation programming and victim supports are not crowded out?
Given the Supreme Court’s Bissonnette decision on parole ineligibility and section 12 of the Charter, what constitutional analysis supports this bill’s approach, and what is the government’s contingency plan if courts strike down extended ineligibility periods?
Longer incarceration before parole increases corrections and healthcare costs for aging inmates without clear economic benefits, modestly detracting from overall prosperity.
This is a sentencing change for extreme violent crimes and does not materially affect economic freedom or regulatory inertia.
No direct link to productivity or competitiveness; any effects are indirect and speculative.
No relation to trade or export capacity.
No impact on investment climate or innovation policy.
Extending parole ineligibility likely increases prison time served, raises custody and healthcare costs, and may spur longer trials and constitutional litigation, straining courts and corrections.
No tax policy changes.
A targeted criminal sentencing reform; does not advance broad-based economic prosperity.
Did we get the builder vote wrong?
Email [email protected]