This article originally appeared in The Line.
By Peter Copeland, October 31, 2025
It seems Canadians have been sentenced to a lifetime of their political leaders rattling on about bail reform.
Earlier this month, Mark Carney’s government announced plans for a new public safety bill that would introduce reverse-onus bail for major crimes, as well as tougher sentences for multiple offences and new RCMP funding to fight organized crime. The federal Conservatives advanced even stronger “jail-not-bail” proposals.
We have been here before. After police officer killings and high-profile offences by people on bail in 2023, premiers pushed Ottawa to tighten the rules, prompting Bill C-48. The fixation on bail still misses the point.
Parts of the new federal plan are sound. Extra resources for policing and organized-crime enforcement are long overdue. But bail is not the core problem. The real issues are repeat violent offenders and the expanding reach of organized crime. What’s needed is swifter enforcement, consistent sentencing, a credible expectation of being caught and convicted, and genuine rehabilitation.
The politicians are responding to legitimate and justified public anger. There’s no question a troubling number of violent offences have been committed by individuals already on bail. Rising public awareness of these cases has shaken confidence in the justice system.
But our problems are bigger than bail. These incidents likely reflect the broader rise in violent crime over the past decade — though we lack the data to verify it. No system tracks reoffending by those on bail. Collecting that information, as some have urged, would be a good first step.
But just locking people up won’t solve our main problems and will actually make other problems worse. Offenders denied bail are remanded to crowded provincial facilities for days, months, or even years. This fuels contraband, violence, and limited access to rehabilitation. Even if convicted and sentenced, credit for time served puts these individuals quickly back on the street, now more likely to reoffend than when they entered.
After 2024’s public safety push, prison populations surged and exceeded capacity — with more offenders remanded to pre-trial custody, rather than sentenced. Incarceration costs $100,000 per inmate-year, while community supervision costs are roughly a third of that — and it’s safer than ever with GPS ankle-monitoring. What’s more, today’s prison population is different from yesterday’s. The closure of psychiatric institutions once hailed as “progressive” has left the justice system to manage untreated mental illness and addiction. Roughly one-third of federal inmates have a diagnosed serious mental disorder.
Carney’s announcement of consecutive and harsher sentencing sounds decisive but changes little. Judges already have discretion to order consecutive terms where appropriate, and proportionality and Charter jurisprudence constrain their use. What’s more, decades of evidence show that simply increasing incarceration does not reduce crime. The real need is a sentencing framework that produces consistency and predictability, ensuring repeat violent offenders face predictable consequences.
That’s why real reform starts with smarter — not just harsher and longer — sentencing.
Sentencing reform must focus on the actors who commit the most crime: repeat violent offenders. Canadian justice data show a small percentage of offenders commit over half of recorded crimes. Ottawa should pursue targeted mandatory minimums for the most serious and prosecutable crimes: firearms trafficking, organized-crime violence, drug trafficking, and trade-based money-laundering. Properly designed with narrow exemptions — like age, or minimal prior record — such minimums would be Charter-compliant and focus resources on the small cohort driving most violent crime. Canada is an outlier in lacking this calibrated approach.
Another factor in achieving sentencing consistency is how Crown prosecuters prosecute hybrid offences. Most offences are hybrid, giving Crowns discretion to proceed summarily or by indictment under criteria in federal and provincial prosecution manuals. These could be amended to establish a presumption that hybrid offences involving repeat violent offenders, organized-crime activity, or drug trafficking should proceed by indictment. Departures would require supervisory approval and written justification, preserving discretion while curbing the temptation to pursue easier, lighter penalties which undermine deterrence and sentencing consistency.
Clearer statutory limits are also needed on the Supreme Court’s Gladue ruling and racial impact assessments, which too often translate broad sociological claims of systemic bias into sentence reductions, eroding consistency and equal application of the law.
Longer or smarter post-release supervision would improve deterrence and rehabilitation at far lower cost. Most violent offending peaks between 18 and 35. Our sentencing provisions should reflect this. Changes to Criminal Code s.718 sentencing principles should encourage institutional custody followed by mandatory in-community supervision for repeat violent offenders in this age range, emphasizing the greater risks to public safety present during this window. The increasing effectiveness and decreasing cost of GPS monitoring for paroled inmates is a tool Canadian jurisdictions should use much more than they currently do.
But we must go further. Bail and sentencing reform mean little if we ignore the organized-crime ecosystem behind much of the violence.
Organized crime is rapidly expanding in Canada. In 2021, the Criminal Intelligence Service of Canada identified 2,600 organized-crime groups. By 2024, Public Safety Canada reported over 4,000 — including transnational syndicates behind fentanyl production, money-laundering, and vehicle theft.
Parliament should create disclosure and timeline carve-outs for complex organized-crime and national-security cases, giving prosecutors the time and protection to use intelligence without jeopardizing sources — tools already available to our Five Eyes partners.
Court backlogs are another obstacle: during the pandemic, 42 per cent of cases exceeding the Jordan ceiling of 30 months for serious charges were stayed or withdrawn. Median case times continue to climb, and the number of criminal decisions rendered has dropped. Without more judges and streamlined procedures, we will continue to lack the capacity to prosecute and convict.
Premiers, attorneys general, and both federal parties are right to treat public safety as urgent. But it’s misguided to think that simplistic tough-on-crime slogans can deliver it. Canada needs consistent sentencing, organized-crime suppression, the right investments in rehabilitation, and court and policing capacity that make enforcement certain. Canadians want both safety and fairness. They deserve a justice system that delivers more than another round of bail theatre.
Peter Copeland is deputy director of domestic policy at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute. He previously worked as a policy director in the office of Ontario’s solicitor general.
