Supreme Court hears arguments on Quebec City mosque shooter's sentence

The Supreme Court of Canada is now deliberating on how long the gunman who murdered six people in a Quebec City mosque should remain in prison before a chance of parole, in a case that could redefine sentencing provisions for the most serious crimes in Canada.

Alexandre Bissonnette pleaded guilty to six counts of first-degree murder and six counts of attempted murder for his attack on worshippers at the Islamic Cultural Centre on Jan. 29, 2017.

He was originally sentenced to life in prison with no chance of parole for 40 years — the longest period of parole ineligibility ever handed down in Quebec.

But in a unanimous decision, the Quebec Court of Appeal overturned that ruling, reducing Bissonnette's parole ineligibilty to 25 years.

The Appeal Court ruled that stacking consecutive periods without the possibility of parole was unconstitutional and amounted to "cruel and unusual" punishment.

It also invalidated the section of the Criminal Code that allows judges to hand out consecutive blocks of 25 years of parole ineligibility for multiple first-degree murders — a decision that applies only in Quebec.

In Thursday's hearing, the Supreme Court heard arguments on the constitutionality of those sentencing provisions, which were introduced in 2011 by Stephen Harper's Conservative government in an attempt to prevent a sentencing "discount" for multiple murders.

As an intervenor in the case, Sameha Omer, counsel for the National Council of Canadian Muslims, said while the courts should avoid cruel and unusual punishment, sentences also must be proportionate.

"Offenders may elect to kill as many people as possible, knowing that they're not going to receive a sentence that's any different than if they had committed one murder," said Omer.

Lawyers for the government of Canada and for several provinces, including Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia, are all arguing in support of the sentencing provision that allows for the stacking of parole ineligibility, while Bissonnette's lawyers, along with associations representing defence attorneys and civil liberties organizations, are asking for that provision to be declared unconstitutional.

Prosecutors in Bissonnette's trial had originally asked for six consecutive periods of parole ineligibility, totalling 150 years.

But the trial judge, Superior Court Justice François Huot, decided on a 25-year period of parole ineligibility for the first five concurrent sentences, plus an unusual 15 years for the sixth sentence, to be served consecutively.

The Court of Appeal justices determined that this type of hybrid sentence was a misapplication of the law and was not the right way to address concerns about the constitutionality of consecutive sentencing. 

But the justices also railed against the "absurdity" of a law that could allow parole ineligibility that extends far beyond a person's natural life.