Justice Committee on March 27th, 2012

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, Delta—Richmond East, BC]

That is my point of order, and I let Mr. Harris finish his five minutes before I made my point.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will point out, however, that we're talking about the offence itself. The witnesses—and I have no problem with this—talked about four teens being charged in 2009 and 14-year-old boys in 2008, so we're talking in general about this. We can debate whether a 19-year-old is a young person or not if we wish. I think a 19-year-old is pretty young. We're talking about people who need to be educated to understand what's going on.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Okay.

We all got the point, but we should move on because we have witnesses here who we've asked to come before the committee.

We used almost six minutes, Mr. Harris.

Mr. Goguen.

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Tilson, for introducing this bill.

Thank you to all the witnesses for coming here to give your testimony.

We're now going to talk about the subject matter of this thing: the desecration of war memorials.

Mr. Tilson, as you know, the 200th anniversary of the War of 1812 is upon us next year. As Canadians, we're extremely proud of our role in that great war and the role the country played. Following the anniversary of the War of 1812 there'll be the 100th anniversary of World War I. That will come upon us soon enough. We all know that Canada and Canadians played an immense role in this war, and the anniversary will be a time to remember all those who died defending the country and democracy—a large number. Tens of thousands of brave Canadians went to the aid of the allies in the cause of freedom in the Second World War as well. Of course, let's not forget the Korean War.

This past summer the Canadian Forces wound down combat operations in Afghanistan. This is Canada's longest-ever combat mission, a mission in which the country lost 157 brave men and women of the Canadian Forces. Now, of course, there's also the Gulf War, the Balkans, Afghanistan, and Libya. The best of our young men and women have shown time and time again their willingness to lay down the ultimate sacrifice, showing the values of Canadians. All too often that willingness has cost them their lives, and of course the memorials are there to remember that.

Mr. Tilson, how will your private member's bill achieve its purpose of showing that the disrespect—by damaging war memorials—shown to persons who were killed or died as a consequence of war will attract profound public disapproval in the form of a specific Criminal Code offence?

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Thank you very much for your comments.

I can only say—and I'm just repeating what I've said in my comments both in the House and here at this committee—that whatever we have now isn't working, Mr. Chairman. Whatever we have now is clearly not working.

I've heard particularly members of the opposition in debate at second reading saying, well, you know, these young people should work with the Legion. I have no problem with that. That's a good thing. My belief is that they're going to have to do it after they've paid $1,000, because essentially that's what we have now. One can say that the retribution is working. Well, it's not working. All you have to do is look at what happened this past November. There were incidents of damage right across this country. How do I know? Because I was interviewed by radio stations all across the country just after incidents happened in their cities.

Mr. Chairman, I believe that working with the Legion is fine, but the judge has the capability of making such an order after they pay at least $1,000.

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Generally, for the other witnesses, what are your thoughts on whether this bill would be favourably received by the Royal Canadian Legion, the army, the navy, the air force, and the veterans association? Is this something these associations would be very happy to receive in law?

Mr. Page.

[Earl Page]

It would probably be well received.

Our thoughts usually are that something should be done and must be done, because this desecration cannot go on. I don't know whether the bill will deter anything, but anything that helps to get over this or get past this is welcome.

As far as the Legion and the navy club are concerned, we have the army cadets and the sea cadets. One of our high schools has sent people over to the European memorials, and that's working with the youth. They all honour what's going on with the veterans and what's going on with the Legion. Our legions and our veterans groups are fading very fast. We'd like to see something done, and we will welcome this bill if it gets passed.

Thank you.

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Thank you, sir.

Mr. Eggenberger, did you have a comment to make?

[John Eggenberger]

The Canadian Peacekeeping Veterans Association, of which I'm a vice-president, polled our membership just before I came. The bill was circulated to them. I don't know if it's okay or not, but we did that. They came back giving absolutely 100% approval. We didn't have anybody who came out and said we ought not to approve it.

So what can I say? That's about it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Thank you.

Mr. Cotler.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

When we debated this in second reading, I said in the House what I will repeat today. It was basically stated by witnesses that there is a duty to take action against those who would dishonour our heritage, our history, our memorials, referred to then as le devoir de mémoire, the duty of memory. And as you said today, vandalism and desecration of monuments is intolerable and such desecration dishonours us all.

We have right now in the Criminal Code an offence of mischief in relation to both cultural property and religious property. Indeed, I introduced the legislation regarding mischief on religious property. In 2005, at the time when we had a national justice initiative on racism and hate, I spoke specifically about the desecration of war memorials.

When we speak about the definition of “cultural property”, it includes immovable property of great importance to the cultural heritage of every people, such as monuments of architecture, art, or history, whether religious or secular.

I have a question specifically on this point. In your opinion, are war memorials cultural property under this definition? If not, why not? And if so, why would it not be sufficient to prosecute mischief relating to war memorials under existing provisions? That's the first thing.

The second thing is this. As I said then, I supported this amendment, in principle. My question is and my concern then was on the issue of mandatory minimums, because my problem has always been with mandatory minimums. They are often disproportionate under the circumstances. They serve neither as a deterrent nor as an effective remedy, particularly having regard to the individual circumstances of the case and the removal of judicial discretion in that regard.

We may have a situation here where it also removes transparency—that's another problem with mandatory minimums—and it doesn't achieve exactly the objective you want. What I mean by that is you have a plea bargain out of court whereby the accused pleads guilty to a lesser offence of mischief. No record is made of the fact that it was mischief with regard to, let's say, urinating on a war memorial, so we don't achieve that kind of educative possibility, nor do we have the alternative remedies, of which reference has been made today, of apologies, working with the Legion, etc. You end up having a situation where you don't achieve the objectives you wish. It might be best to have this kind of principle adopted but without the mandatory minimum.

Those are the two questions.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and this is through you to Mr. Cotler.

You've asked some good questions. You're right. Those questions were raised during the second reading debate.

With respect to churches and items of culture, no, this bill does not deal with those items. Perhaps other members of Parliament want to introduce an amendment with respect to churches, items of culture. You could get into historical items. My colleague over here raised the issue of 1812, which may apply to this section. It may not. That would depend on what has been damaged.

My focus is strictly on cenotaphs because of the observation I've had across this country, for incredible reasons. I don't know why this is done across this country. Obviously, this leads to your second question, the issue of mandatory minimums.

I appreciate that. The Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party, in recent examples, are opposed to that type of penalty. I understand that philosophy. I do not...particularly in this particular section.

This may not be the time to debate it, but quite frankly, the issues we have now.... The minimum penalty in the proposed bill is $1,000. If it gets more serious, it could be more than $1,000. As well, it doesn't preclude a judge from saying, “Well, in addition to that penalty, you're going to have to work with the Legion. You're going to have to do community service with the Legion.” There's nothing to preclude a judge from doing that.

The whole purpose of this bill, Mr. Cotler, is that the process we have now is not working. It has not been working even in 2011 when we had examples of destruction of cenotaphs right across this country. We can't continue to allow the simple mischief penalties to allow for those things.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Thank you, Mr. Tilson.

Mr. Cotler, we're up to five and a half minutes, I'm sorry.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

I want to say that I understand what you're saying.

My concern is the same as yours. If you do have a mandatory minimum, it may still not work because you may end up getting a plea bargain. Therefore, you end up not only with the fact that you don't have the kind of punishment you want, but people don't know what the punishment was for.

We have no transparency; we don't even know.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

You're not going to blow $1,000 on a plea bargain, I'll tell you that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Thank you.

Ms. Findlay.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, Delta—Richmond East, BC]

Thank you.

I have an initial question for Mr. Tilson, following up on what Mr. Cotler was saying. He spoke of his opposition to mandatory minimums in general as usually being disproportionate to the circumstances.

The mandatory minimum penalties proposed in this legislation seem to me to be quite modest, if that's a good word. Can you speak to the proportionality, in your view, of a $1,000 fine for a first offence, 30 days for a second offence, and 90 days for a third offence?

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

If anyone is so stupid as to vandalize a cenotaph a second or third time, that would be absolutely incredible. He or she is going to jail.

My friend Mr. Page here and his colleagues in Woodstock attended a trial and saw what happened: some person just got a slap on the wrist. That's absolutely unacceptable.

If that sort of incident were to happen a second time, you deserve to go to jail. If it happens a third time, then you're going to spend a bit more time in jail.

I cannot emphasize that the whole purpose of this is that these places are sacred places. They're sacred. We go to cenotaphs at least once a year, every year, and honour those who have died and those who have served in the different conflicts going back in time.

That's the whole purpose of the bill, and as Mr. Cotler quite rightly said, we have a duty to take action. I believe that we do have a duty to take action, and I believe this bill is doing just that.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, Delta—Richmond East, BC]

Thank you.

I was remiss in the beginning in not thanking you all for being here and taking your time to help us look at this legislation.

Mr. Page, I understand you're from Woodstock. Although I'm a B.C. MP, that's the area where my mother grew up, so I know the community well. It is my understanding that in the incident we're referring to here, swastikas were painted on the war memorial at Woodstock that were still visible during the ceremonies on Remembrance Day.

Is that correct?

[Earl Page]

Yes.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, Delta—Richmond East, BC]

You said that the person charged with that offence was an adult. Is that correct?

[Earl Page]

Yes, he was. I think he was 29 years old.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, Delta—Richmond East, BC]

I wanted to give you an opportunity to say how that made you, as a war veteran yourself, and your fellow veterans feel on that Remembrance Day when this was still evident at the ceremony.

[Earl Page]

I can tell you that if we had got hold of that guy that day or shortly thereafter, we wouldn't have had to worry about mandatory minimums. That is not justice, but maybe it's our type of justice.

Giving that person or any person over to the Legion or any veterans organization for punishment I think would not be very appropriate. Our organizations, as I expressed, are losing our members so fast. We don't mind; we like to work with the youth, and we always do.

We're getting too old to supervise a bunch of kids erasing paint or something like that, but we do welcome any legislation that will help get rid of this. It's not right. It's a desecration of honour and respect.

Our youth and all our people in Canada, except those who are doing the damage, honour the veterans every Remembrance Day. I don't think I've missed a Remembrance Day in 60-some years, and there are always a lot of children. People come out to respect the memory of the veterans.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, Delta—Richmond East, BC]

I'm sure you'd agree with me that it's the majority of Canadians, of course, who bring their families and participate.