WELLINGTON COUNTY – Two local Tory politicians say reimposing mandatory minimum sentences, harkening back to the Stephen Harper era, would help address residents’ concerns about crime.
Wellington-Halton Hills MPP Joseph Racinsky launched an online petition earlier this month calling on the federal government to reinstate mandatory minimum sentences to “ensure real consequences, unavoidable jail time and a justice system that prioritizes public safety.”
According to his office, the petition garnered “hundreds of signatures from local residents” in the days before it was removed from Racinsky’s riding website.
But area defence lawyers and the Criminal Lawyer’s Association advise against returning to an outdated punitive measure they say fails to deliver on crime-fighting claims.
Over the summer, Racinsky, in addition to student helpers, visited homes in Wellington-Halton Hills, coming away with the belief that people have a “real, deep sense” of a broken justice system in need repair, he said.
Racinsky didn’t speak to specifics in an interview with the Advertiser, nor did he say how many people have brought up concerns with crime.
“It’s not about the specifics … it’s simply just this is the feeling amongst the people here and I want that to be passed along and reflected,” Racinsky said of his petition.
“I’m not trying to fear monger, but I think crime is increasing,” said the former Halton Hills councillor who replaced former MPP Ted Arnott this year.
Racinsky plans to discuss the petition at Queen’s Park this fall, though changes to the Criminal Code of Canada fall under federal jurisdiction.
“Ultimately, the federal government and the decision makers are going to take a lot of things into consideration,” Racinsky said.
On Monday, Ontario’s solicitor general and attorney general addressed a letter to the feds, calling for, among other things, the return of mandatory minimum sentences for serious crimes.
Chong supports petition
Racinsky’s petition has the support of Wellington-Halton Hills Conservative MP Michael Chong, who told the Advertiser crime will be a focus for him in Ottawa.
“I don’t think our communities are as safe as they were 10 years ago,” Chong said.
“This has been a huge concern for constituents for some time,” he continued, adding, “Their concerns are not unfounded.”
In Conservative Party talking points, assertions are frequently made that crime is up across the board. Words such as “surged,” “spiked,” and “skyrocketed” are used in party press releases to describe a purported rise in crime.
Conservative Party Leader Pierre Poilievre has said crime is out of control in Canadian communities thanks to Liberal “soft-on-crime” and “hug-a-thug” policies unleashing a “wicked crime spree.”
Chong noted Stats Canada Crime Severity Index data (a weighted measure factoring in crime severity) suggesting violent crime is up across the country.
Indeed, violent crime, as measured by the index had increased across the country by 15 per cent over a three-year period prior to 2024.
However, that trend changed in last year’s data (released this summer) with a four-per-cent decrease in the overall severity index and a one-percent decrease in the violent crime index.
There were decreases in violent crime categories, including sexual assault, extortion, robbery, attempted murder and aggravated assault, according to the data.
Wellington County has long stood as one of Canada’s safest communities.
Wellington County’s Crime Severity Index has fluctuated between 26 and 44 over a nine-year period between 2015 to 2024.
Last year, the county’s overall severity index was 28, compared to 56 in Guelph, 69 in Toronto and 78 in Canada.
The county saw declines last year in the overall index and in violent crime, from around 30 in both categories to 28 and 23, respectively.
Still, Chong wants to see a return to Harper’s “tough-on-crime” era, brought about through legislation in 2012-15 that implemented or raised mandatory minimum sentences for a range of offences.
Unconstitutional?
Several cases with mandatory minimum sentences were later found to be unconstitutional and struck down by the Supreme Court of Canada in the years following the Harper government.
The Liberal government, under Justin Trudeau’s leadership, later implemented legislation repealing some mandatory minimums, but there are still around 100 offences on the books with mandated minimums.
Chong said the Tories are “confident that the changes that we believe need to be made to our criminal justice system are charter compliant.”
Justice Minister Sean Fraser has said the Liberal government will introduce changes to bail and sentencing in Ottawa in October.
“We’ll see how far they go … we’ll be keeping a very close eye on that in the fall,” Chong said.
Leigh Fishleigh, a Fergus-based defence lawyer of more than three decades, defended Wellington County clients facing mandatory minimum sentences during the Harper era.
“A mandatory minimum sentence assumes that the judges, the lawyers – who are all highly experienced in the criminal justice system – simply do not know what they are doing, and that the politicians know better,” Fishleigh said.
Defence lawyers and Crown attorneys routinely negotiate plea deals to avoid lengthy and expensive trials.
“We would only go to trial when it was absolutely necessary,” said Fishleigh, who has since retired and closed his practice.
“Most of what we do is figure out what the right sentence is,” he added.
Sentencing alternatives, like house arrest, can’t be used when a mandatory minimum is imposed.
There’s no room for negotiating a deal, Fishleigh said, and the incentive for good behaviour disappears.
And trials become necessary to have a chance at avoiding incarceration, increasing the burden on the justice system.
Playing devil’s advocate, Fisleigh conceded locking up a car thief ensures they’re no longer stealing a car.
On the other hand, a one-size-fits-all sentencing approach fails those with mental health, socio-economic, addiction or cognitive issues, he said.
“There’s people that will never be able to stand on their own two feet,” Fishleigh said.
“You can sentence them all you want, it doesn’t make any difference, they come out and they still can’t stand on their own two feet.”
Fishleigh called mandatory minimum sentences “a nice, simple answer” and a “political response” to complex social/legal questions.
Quick-hit political slogans work, Fisleigh said, because they “effectively give a lot of people the answer they need to feel safer, and that gathers a lot of votes.”
‘Expensive and ineffective’
Guelph-based defence lawyer Perrin Valli said mandatory minimums don’t deter crime and are “counterproductive” – worsening social and systemic circumstances underlying criminal behaviour.
“The public should reject mandatory minimum sentences as an old, expensive and ineffective idea,” Valli told the Advertiser.
“We should be asking our political leaders to invest in new creative solutions that might actually help make us all safer. That would be a much better use of tax payers’ funds.”
Criminal Lawyer’s Association (CLA) vice president Adam Weisberg said mandatory minimums strip judges of their ability to “tailor and fashion” appropriate sentences.
“Instead of using logic, circumstance and intellect, let’s just use a hammer,” Weisberg remarked.
The CLA has intervened at Canada’s top court and supported decisions to strike down mandatory minimums as unconstitutional.
The goal of sentencing isn’t to just lock someone up, Weisberg said.
“The goal, frankly, is to have offenders eventually become functioning members of society.”
Among several other factors, sentencing judges must consider the community, victims and an offender’s individual circumstances.
Focusing solely on deterrence and denunciation, Weisberg added, is an overrated talking point.
“Most people committing offences are either in a situation of desperation or they think they won’t get caught,” he said, adding they’re not making rational, educated decisions.
