Thank you, Chair. I want to thank Mr. Tilson, member of Parliament, and the others for coming here today.
I think we all agree that vandalism or desecration of war memorials is something that's terrible, particularly in light of what they're for and that they're there to memorialize and remember those who made the huge sacrifice of their lives on behalf of their country. I agree with Mr. Tilson that it's not right that war memorials and cenotaphs fall in the same category as mailboxes and parking meters.
I'm looking at the mischief section of the Criminal Code. It has different types of offences for which the penalties are, in fact, different.
I will say that the way the Criminal Code treats the seriousness of offences is by having a maximum penalty. There's no minimum penalty, by the way, for this. For example, it says that “Every one who commits mischief that causes actual danger to life is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for life”. For actual danger to life, life imprisonment is the maximum penalty. There's no minimum penalty, no fine, no nothing. The courts and the judges decide, and that's the way our system works.
When you deal with certain other kinds of property, such as a swastika painted on a synagogue, the penalty listed here is that a person is “guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years...or is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding eighteen months”.
I wouldn't want a system that said that if some ignorant young man or woman spray-painted “Bravo” on a war memorial, he or she would be given a mandatory minimum sentence, and someone who put a swastika on a synagogue, which is the evil our war heroes were fighting against in World War II.... One should be treated more seriously than the other. As Mr. Whitty said, we're trying to achieve a balance here.
I agree with Mr. Tilson. There should be consistency. We should point out that there's a problem with this.
I'm talking in the spirit of trying to do something that recognizes what Mr. Tilson wants and also recognizes other aspects of the Criminal Code. For example, I've looked at this penalty section, proposed paragraph 430(4.11)(a) of your bill, which calls for a mandatory minimum fine of $1,000 for a first offence and a mandatory minimum penalty in jail for a second and third offence. These look very like the penalties for impaired driving.
I know the history of those offences. I practised law for 30 years. Over those 30 years we've had hundreds of thousands of accidents and deaths due to impaired driving. Gradually, in order to change people's attitude, to change people's minds about impaired driving, we've increased the penalties to the point where they are now.
I want to suggest to you that this is not where we need to go as a starting point on this. The starting point on this should be to recognize that the desecration of a war memorial is a significant offence and it can attract, in the right cases, as Mr. Whitty points out, a severe penalty. But there ought to be an opportunity for dealing with some young person, for example, who does this out of ignorance or stupidity or whatever. I want to suggest that to you.
I want to also add to Mr. Eggenberger's concerns. For example, in July 2008, a 14-year-old boy was caught spray-painting the war memorial in Esquimalt. One of our members who spoke during the debate in the House is from Esquimalt. He quoted the Legion president. His name, by the way, is Ken Irvine. He called for what he characterized as an appropriate punishment for the youth. He didn't call for jail. He said that the youth ought to have to come to the Legion on a regular basis, meet with the veterans, and hear their stories of sacrifice on his behalf. He felt that when a youth had that re-education, he or she would then be very much committed to talking to other youths who were taggers, which is spray-painting, about trying to avoid tagging war memorials. The two police officers also publicly called for using this form of restorative justice.
Whether it be a restitution order, working with the Legion, or getting that education, there are other ways of diverting those who are ignorant and don't know. Also, as Mr. Whitty points out, if you have somebody who has a profit motive and is treating a cenotaph as a source of scrap metal, well, then you have a larger sentence available in appropriate cases.
I want to suggest to Mr. Tilson, and those who are concerned, as we all are, that having a penalty that's consistent with some of the other aspects of mischief is more appropriate. Putting mischief in relation to cenotaphs and memorials into the Criminal Code is a good way to let people know that this is being treated very seriously by Parliament and society.
I'll invite any one of you to comment on those points.