Evidence of meeting #29 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 offence.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:05 p.m.
NDP
Charmaine Borg NDP Terrebonne—Blainville, QC
Thank you.
I have a second question for you. I have a concern about someone who cannot pay a $1,000 fine. Take a student who has just finished university; he would not necessarily have $1,000 in his pocket.
Are we right to be concerned about what could happen to that person? Can you see a solution? Could you even propose one?
12:05 p.m.
Criminal Defence Counsel, Webber Schroeder Goldstein Abergel, As an Individual
In my experience, with respect to a fine, obviously when you have a fine, it's premised on the ability to pay. And courts are mandated——I'm thinking of a recent case, in fact—to look into whether the offender has the ability to pay. When it comes to fines, a certain amount of time is given to pay the fine. For example, for impaired driving charges, which carry the same fine, they're given either three months, six months, a year, or two years to pay. That's something that is often, if not always, considered by the court.
12:10 p.m.
Executive Director, John Howard Society of Canada
I think you're quite right. Setting up a mandatory minimum fine creates a problem for the less affluent members of society who may run afoul of this law. So you're setting a little bit of an affluence distinction in terms of how onerous that particular penalty is. It is the same thing with the records provisions. It now costs $631 to apply to get a record suspension, which again creates a bias against those who may not have the resources to pay.
12:10 p.m.
NDP
Charmaine Borg NDP Terrebonne—Blainville, QC
Thank you.
I am going to give the rest of my time to Mr. Harris.
12:10 p.m.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
Thank you.
I did want to draw the attention of both witnesses to.... We've had some talk about the charter and proportionality and other things. Section 430 of the existing code provides for a maximum sentence for mischief of life imprisonment, when there is actual danger to life as a result of damage to property.
I note that despite the ultimate seriousness of actual endangerment to life, there's no mandatory minimum. Can you explain how that would help people understand the different degree of seriousness with respect to a war memorial versus endangering someone's life? How does that sit with you?
12:10 p.m.
Executive Director, John Howard Society of Canada
Just going back to the principles, I think it is better to set the maximum and then allow a lot of latitude for the courts to determine how serious the offence actually was. We at John Howard, along with many other organizations, have problems with mandatory minimums generally, because they do not allow the judiciary to impose a penalty that may well be proportionate to the seriousness of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender if it is under what is set as the mandatory minimum. So I like the idea in all cases that there be no mandatory minimum set.
In terms of how you would justify a mandatory minimum for an offence of mischief that is less serious than the one you've just described, I think it raises some serious concerns of parity amongst the Criminal Code provisions.
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dave MacKenzie
Thank you.
I want to thank the witnesses for being here today. You've brought a lot of information to the table. We appreciate that.
I think we're going to go into the clause-by-clause, so you're welcome to stay in the room if you'd like.
We'll suspend for three minutes.
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dave MacKenzie
I call the meeting back to order. We'll move to the clause-by-clause consideration.
We have officials here from the justice department, and our legislative clerks are here.
We have some amendments. The first amendment is NDP-0.1...?
12:20 p.m.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
I'm assuming it's the same one I have. The motion is that Bill C-217, in clause 1—
12:20 p.m.
NDP
12:20 p.m.
NDP
Françoise Boivin NDP Gatineau, QC
This is what I propose… Do you have the text I wrote?
Do you have my text? I want to be accurate. I can't read my writing—
12:20 p.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
12:20 p.m.
NDP
Françoise Boivin NDP Gatineau, QC
Not on this one.
So, on page 1, line 7, after the word “quiconque”, I propose that we add “, étant motivé par des préjugés ou de la haine, ”.
In English, it would be to add, at page 1, line 16, after “cemetery”:
if the commission of the mischief is motivated by bias, prejudice or hate,
and then it continues, “is guilty of an indictable offence or...”.
The reason is that if you look at the actual Criminal Code under.... I don't think anybody around this table disagrees that it is terrible to have a monument desecrated, or a religious mosque, or any religious building like this, a church or anything like that.
In subsection 430(4.1) of the Criminal Code, dealing with places of worship, it says:
Every one who commits mischief in relation to property that is a building, structure or…if the commission of the mischief is motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on religion, race…
In my opinion, this would at least keep this same way of writing the Criminal Code as applied to offences of equal severity, or at least the same perception of them. It would be a good way of staying consistent in that regard, by which I mean the way in which the Criminal Code is read.
It would perhaps provide a solution to some of the problems we are raising, at least. We have a hard time understanding why certain kinds of offences are treated differently when they are at an equal level of seriousness. That is the reason for the addition.
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dave MacKenzie
It is beyond the scope of the bill, as it introduces a new concept in the bill.
12:20 p.m.
NDP
Françoise Boivin NDP Gatineau, QC
Really? What new concept? Being consequent to the Criminal Code is a new concept...?
12:20 p.m.
Conservative