Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you for being with us today.
I really have a lot of admiration for what you represent and what you have accomplished. In my riding, there are two legions. Every year, November 11 is a pretty special day. I have had the opportunity to talk with a good number of veterans, and even "new veterans". It is not always easy. I agree with you, Mr. Whitty: to a large extent, it involves education.
I am from the region and my riding is Gatineau. I can tell you that we heard a lot here about the incident that occurred in Ottawa. I am quite aware of it, Mr. Tilson. I used to have a radio show, like the very well-known host, Lowell Green—who is going to be very happy to know that his name has been spoken publicly here today—and I listened to some of the calls. It was very "hot in the city." I do not know quite how to say it, but this incident was really insulting, it got us very upset. Still, sometimes you have to know when to breathe through your nose and let the dust settle. Actually if we had listened to all the opinions expressed on the air that day, on both francophone and anglophone radio, we might have hanged the person found guilty of that mischief.
I think that everyone here agrees. Mr. Tilson, we appreciate your introducing this bill and, within section 430 of the Criminal Code, your proposing that a specific provision be created as a sign of the importance of these memorials throughout Canada. I think it is basic. However, we must strike a balance. Your role, Mr. Tilson, is to introduce this bill, a right I fully acknowledge. But as a legislator, MP and member of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights responsible for determining whether it is really in line with the Criminal Code, I am worried about there being two categories whose scope is equally severe.
Earlier Mr. Cotler gave the example of mischief targeting a synagogue. I do not think anyone here would say this is a more important or a less important incident. To my mind, it is the same. If you will forgive the expression, I would say that both incidents are equally sickening. By passing your bill, we would be creating a provision within the Criminal Code and, in my opinion, this would be a mistake because these situations would no longer be equivalent. Mr. Tilson, you answered Mr. Cotler in this regard. I understand what you said, but it does not answer the question. An amendment would have to be passed so that equivalent sentences could be imposed in cases where the degree of severity was the same. Otherwise, there is going to be a problem, and this will be discussed when a charge is laid, whether it involves a summary conviction or an indictment for a criminal act. That is problem number one.
Problem number two concerns minimum sentencing. Mr. Page, I understand what you are saying, but I can tell you that, as you go through a court system dealing with such offences, you want to see some results. But I can guarantee you will not get them. Why not? Let us take one of Mr. Harris's examples. The Crown will reach an agreement with the defence that the mischief be regarded as a lesser, included offence, that the accused plead guilty to ordinary mischief, that he do some community work and that he spend a week with the cadets or some time in the legion. In other words, we would not get the desired result.
The problem is always there when provision is made for a minimum sentence, as in this case, or 14 days in prison. You just have to look at the newspaper headlines. Mr. Harris talked about criminal offences related to drunk driving. When I read that someone has been arrested for the seventh or eighth time, I say to myself that someone, somewhere, was not being very vigilant. Most of the time the Crown tells us that, in many cases, time constraints mean it is impossible to check a person's record. That is why it always lays a charge as though it were a first offence. So providing for a second or third type of sentence is not necessarily effective.
My reservations concern these two aspects. I want your bill to become part of the Criminal Code, so that there is a special category for these offences. I would also like it if amendments were passed to include other elements, such as religious symbols. I do not think that would adulterate your bill, but I think we should stick with that, or there is going to be a problem of imbalance in the Criminal Code. In addition, we have to take a close look at the question of the thousands of dollars. Sometimes young students do stupid things. I do not think that any of the witnesses would want the life of these young people to be ruined forever. I studied law. If one of my classmates had been stupid enough to commit this idiocy in Ottawa and were then caught, I would have a bit of a problem.