Yes, I have one last one, Mr. Chairman.
It simply adds the language “that for greater certainty, an offender who fails to pay the victim surcharge because he or she is unable to do so is not subject to imprisonment as a result of that failure.”
Again I'll be brief in my explanation, Mr. Chairman.
Basically, the amendment seeks to codify the principle in R. v. and Wu, to which I've referred before, as have other colleagues, in which the Supreme Court affirmed that it is irrational to imprison an offender who does not have the capacity to pay a fine in order to compel the payment. This would add clarity to the statute while addressing the concerns that have been expressed that this bill would have the effect of putting people in jail longer simply because they aren't able to pay or because they are in a province that does not have a fine option or a similar program to offset their debt obligation.
Basically, we are seeking to codify the Supreme Court reasoning by way of an amendment to preserve the government's objectives, but not allow for unreasonable incarceration or prolonged incarceration where it wouldn't otherwise take place.