Evidence of meeting #28 for Justice and Human Rights in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was memorials.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:10 p.m.
NDP
Pierre Jacob NDP Brome—Missisquoi, QC
Thank you Mr. Page, Mr. Eggenberger, Mr. Whitty and Mr. Tilson for coming here to share your concerns with us.
We all consider that vandalism, the desecration of war memorials, the defilement of our veterans' honour and the huge sacrifices they made to defend our democracy are horrible, but I liked what you said concerning the cadets you take care of, Mr. Whitty. From what you say, they have a lot of respect for these memorials. Perhaps that explains why they also have respect for Canada's history, particularly Canadian military history. They have a better understanding of the significance.
Instead of instilling fear of prison, we could acquaint people with the sacrifices made by veterans. This could be done by teaching history. I would like you to tell me how you manage to make cadets aware of this issue, how you succeed in instilling such respect among them.
12:15 p.m.
Executive Director, Army Cadet League of Canada
It is easier for me.
The military history of Canada is part of the cadet training program. Just by the fact that the cadets wear a military-style uniform, they feel themselves connected to the Canadian Forces in a direct way. They hold these people up as heroes right from the get-go.
I have to say, as a sidebar here, that we're not training teenagers to become soldiers, sailors, or airmen in Canada. It's a youth movement. We're training them to be everything the Canadian Forces members are, which is courageous, good citizens, family men and women. These are the qualities we are trying to impart to them. But because of the fact that they are connected directly to the Canadian Forces in a small way, they have a direct connection.
I mentioned earlier that the names on the monument are being lost because people don't have a direct connection to those names. But they do have a direct connection to the names of military units that took part in battles or served in Libya, and they have respect for people who served in those units.
So it's a little different. They are immersed in it.
12:15 p.m.
NDP
Pierre Jacob NDP Brome—Missisquoi, QC
If I understand correctly, it would definitely be in our interest to reintroduce history to secondary- and post-secondary-level education programs.
12:15 p.m.
Executive Director, Army Cadet League of Canada
I don't think there's enough history taught in schools, if that's your direct question—especially Canadian history. They'd be hard-pressed to name any of the battles of the War of 1812, unless they live in Stony Point.
12:15 p.m.
NDP
Pierre Jacob NDP Brome—Missisquoi, QC
I am convinced that your work with the cadets is essential. We should put the teaching of history back on the program to make young people aware of respect for these cenotaphs and other war memorials, instead of frightening them and pretending that the minimum sentences included in this legislation are going to settle everything. If we focused on prevention instead of repression, maybe there would be less vandalism. I make this statement as a criminologist.
Mr. Tilson, do you believe that mandatory minimum sentences suit all cases of mischief committed against war memorials, or rather that this question should be left to the discretion of the judge of the facts? Since this is the person who deals with the facts of a case, the presence of damage, the voluntary or involuntary nature of the deed, disrespectful gestures and so forth, would he not be better placed to decide what sentence to impose on the offender?
Thank you.
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
David Tilson Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
There are two areas that were raised. I'm quite proud of the education that goes on in my community. There's education in the schools. All of the schools in my community, secondary and elementary schools, hold Remembrance Day services. All of the churches have Remembrance Day services, where names of those who died in the different altercations are repeated. Many of the schools attend the cenotaphs in my community, and there are quite a few, and they're always loaded with children. As well, Mr. Chairman, some of the schools, the secondary schools, at least, have sent groups of young people off to see the different memorials in Europe. They have done that, so the education is good. But what's going on with vandalism isn't working.
Again, we're going back to the mandatory minimum question, and we're never going to agree on this, sir. I can only say that after the mandatory minimum penalty has been placed, because the judge will have the requirement to make that mandatory penalty, the judge will also have a discretion after that to impose community service, to do all kinds of things, and to increase the penalty. Maybe $1,000 isn't enough, but the mandatory minimum is $1,000.
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
Robert Goguen Conservative Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Tilson, obviously the object of this bill is pretty clear in my mind: denouncing the conduct and disrespect to war memorials. There's been some confusion with regard to other monuments, churches, etc. The war dead fought for democracy. They fought for religious beliefs. Isn't there indirectly a tie-in? There's really no need to change your bill. I mean, that's the objective, isn't it?
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
David Tilson Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
My concern relates to war memorials and cenotaphs. If you read the definition in 4.11, I'm dealing with cenotaphs and war memorials.
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
David Tilson Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
I believe it's very specific.
I'll repeat what I said several times, Mr. Chairman. If you want to get into churches, temples, and mosques...that's up to someone else to do that. It may be a completely different category. I don't even want to get into that debate. I don't know the answer to that. But I do know that what we're doing regarding the cenotaphs and war memorials isn't enough.
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
12:20 p.m.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
I wonder if I could use the opportunity, Mr. Tilson, to talk about other charges that might be laid. You say the mandatory minimum is $1,000.
The plea bargain works like this. Somebody is apologetic, has clearly made a mistake, was stupid, and offers to go to the Legion. A crown prosecutor either withdraws the charge and lets it go, which happens, or gets someone to plead guilty to mischief and mutilation to property, generally, not the new offence that you've created.
Madam Boivin was explaining that's what happens. You don't get the transparency. You don't get the message sent that this was an offence in relation to a monument or war memorial because the prosecutor or the system regards this type of approach as being an appropriate penalty for the particular individual. I think others understand that's what happens. Lawyers understand that's what happens.
I think that was the point here, that this bill won't be effective in that way because people will find a workaround. I don't think you'll be happy with that. I don't think the public will be happy with that. That's why we're suggesting that it be done in a little different way.
If you want to comment on that, I don't know if there's time to do that.
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
David Tilson Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
You're quite right. A number of people in this room have had experience with plea bargaining, and it happens all the time. The crown attorney, for whatever reason, could withdraw the charge. I'm simply saying that the purpose of the bill...the plea bargaining—this is it. The mandatory minimums that are in this bill are as low as they can go, and you may not like that, sir, but I'm telling you—I'm telling you—if you canvassed your community...if someone desecrated a war memorial in your community and all they got was a slap on the wrist and community service, and if the damage was serious, you'd be laughed at.
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dave MacKenzie
Thank you.
Seeing no further intervenors, I'd like to thank the panel for being here...whoops, I'm sorry.
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
Irwin Cotler Liberal Mount Royal, QC
Thank you. I appreciate that.
I just want to say something so there is no misunderstanding.
Again, I want to welcome the witnesses. I think your personal experience as a backdrop to the legislation is important and compelling, and we appreciate that. That's why I appreciate what you said, Mr. Tilson, and the witnesses, about the importance of the symbolism and the specificity of this particular piece of legislation.
Now I can say, as a law professor, as a lawmaker, that this type of offence can come under an offence re cultural property, but again, I share, as I say, both the need for the specificity of this offence and the symbolism and resonance of it. So that's why, when we debated this in the House, I supported it in principle, and I should say I've discussed this particular offence with the veterans in my riding. We have a large number of veterans in my riding. We had a forum. I discussed it with them. They support the legislation.
My concern is not with the mandatory minimums per se. Let me just give you some examples, because I understand your approach. When you say you're concerned only with the question of war memorials and cenotaphs, etc., I'm concerned with that as well. You might say I may not be as concerned as you are, but as lawmakers we have to be also concerned about consistency in law-making. If you have a situation where a person urinates on a mosque or a church or a synagogue, there is no mandatory minimum. There is in this legislation with regard to a cenotaph.
You might say, well, I don't care about the other thing; I'm talking about this. I'm just saying that as lawmakers we have to speak about and concern ourselves both with consistency in law-making for the same type of offence and what I would call the equality of protection amongst the victims. Somebody may regard the desecration of a cemetery or a swastika drawing as being no less significant than that which is done on a cenotaph, and I'm saying they're all of concern. I understand the specificity of the legislation. I'm saying there is an issue. Why are there no mandatory minimums for the others and there is for this? You might say, okay, then have it for the others as well. That is something we have to bear in mind in terms of consistency of law-making and equality of protection.
Then, in this regard, you may say that the mandatory minimums are modest, and in fact that is true; they are modest mandatory minimums. But I think you have to take into account the unintended consequences of a mandatory minimum. Experience has shown that you end up not getting what you want, which is exactly that kind of symbolic resonance for the specificity of this particular offence, simply because the mischief charge may be dropped, as it was with regard to the urination experience you mentioned, or it's plea bargained away, and therefore you don't get that particular specificity.
I'm just saying that I support this in principle. I think we have to think about the question of consistency with other kinds of similar situations involving urinating on religious property or desecration and vandalism of cemeteries and the like, and we have to think about the unintended consequences. How does it work in practice in the criminal justice system? My sense is we've got a problem with law enforcement to begin with, and this is something we have to bear in mind, and we have a problem with the plea bargaining in the case of mandatory minimums.
So these things have to be borne in mind.