I'm saying that the Supreme Court, in the Wu case, basically said that people should not be incarcerated because of their inability to pay. In other words, as they put it:
...imprisonment in default of payment of a fine is not an alternative punishmentâhe or she does not have any real choice in the matter. At least, this is the situation until fine option programs or related programs are in place.
If you look at the situation in the provinces, you'll find a serious variation as to whether, in fact, a fine option program is in place. For example, there is no fine option program in either Ontario or Newfoundland and Labrador. In Manitoba and Alberta, for instance, entry into the fine option program is only available at the point that an offender is admitted to jail.
How would you respond to the fact that the enforcement of nonpayment through incarceration should only take place when a fine option program in the provinces is in fact available, to be consistent with the judgment of the Supreme Court in R. v. Wu?