CALGARY: Conservative Policy Proposals Aim to Toughen Canada’s Self-Defence Laws, Mandate Minimum Sentences

An analysis by The Provincial Times of policy proposals set for debate at today's Conservative Party of Canada convention reveals a concerted push to significantly reform the country's justice system, with a focus on strengthening self-defence laws and imposing mandatory minimum sentences for a range of offences.

While the party's broader policy book touches on numerous justice topics, several convention-bound resolutions zero in on specific, and often controversial, legal principles. The proposals, if ever enacted, would mark a notable shift toward a more punitive and property-protective criminal justice framework.

A Proposed “Castle Doctrine” for Canada?

Currently, Canada's self-defence laws, outlined in Sections 34 and 35 of the Criminal Code, are based on a principle of reasonable proportionality. An individual may use force to defend themselves or another person, but the courts must consider whether the act was committed under a reasonable belief of threat and whether the force used was reasonable in the circumstances. There is no standalone law creating an absolute defence for protecting property.

One resolution advancing to the convention seeks to change that calculus. The proposal, sourced from grassroots members, calls for amending the Criminal Code to “strengthen and clarify the legal right of individuals to defend themselves, their loved ones, and their property.”

While the exact legislative wording is not specified in the policy document, the intent aligns with concepts often referred to as “castle doctrine” or “stand your ground” laws, which are more common in parts of the United States. Such laws typically remove the duty to retreat from a threat before using force in one's home and can create a legal presumption that a person acted reasonably in self-defence.

Proponents argue the current law is too restrictive and leaves law-abiding citizens vulnerable to prosecution if they defend their homes from intruders. Critics, including many legal scholars, warn that diluting the “reasonableness” standard could lead to increased violence and vigilantism, arguing Canadian law already permits necessary self-defence.

Reinstating and Expanding Mandatory Minimum Penalties

In a parallel push, other resolutions target judicial sentencing discretion, advocating for a system of fixed, mandatory punishments. This follows a period of the Trudeau Liberal government, backed by several Supreme Court rulings, repealing several mandatory minimum sentences enacted by the previous Conservative government led by Stephen Harper.

The CPC proposals signal a clear intent to reverse that trend. One key resolution advocates for “fixed, determinate sentences for serious violent and repeat offenders.” Another explicitly calls for “mandatory minimum sentences for criminals who use firearms in the commission of an offence, for drug traffickers, and for those convicted of serious assaults on police officers and frontline workers.”

The policy rationale frames this as a matter of justice and consistency, arguing it would “ensure clarity and certainty in sentencing” and “remove judicial discretion that can lead to undue leniency.”

Though popular politically, this approach has faced sustained criticism from criminologists, defence lawyers, and even some judges, who argue mandatory minimums handcuff the judiciary, prevent sentences from being tailored to the specifics of a case and an offender's circumstances, and have been shown to disproportionately harm Indigenous and Black Canadians. They also argue that such laws do little to deter crime, which is more effectively addressed through social and economic factors.

The Political and Legal Road Ahead

These policy resolutions, while not binding on leader Pierre Poilievre, are a powerful indicator of the priorities of the party's activist base. Their adoption at the convention would solidify “tough-on-crime” pillars in the next Conservative election platform.

However, the path from convention resolution to law would be fraught with legal and political challenges. Any move to create U.S.-style self-defence laws would face intense scrutiny and almost certain constitutional challenges under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Similarly, legislating new mandatory minimum sentences would risk running afoul of recent Supreme Court precedents that have invalidated such penalties for being “cruel and unusual” or for over-criminalizing certain conduct.

The debate at the Conservative convention will thus not only shape a potential future government's agenda but also tee up profound questions about the balance between public safety and civil liberties, and between parliamentary power and judicial independence, in Canadian law.

The Provincial Times’ coverage of the 2026 Calgary Conservative Convention was made possible thanks to the support of readers like you. If you believe in independent, reader-funded journalism, we encourage you to donate to our donation page. Thank you for all your support!