Thank you very much.
This takes us to clause 29 at page 25. This proposed amendment flows from the testimony of Catherine Latimer from the John Howard Society. I'll just quote from her:
While normally judges are required to assure themselves that the offender is capable of paying a fine before imposing it, the Victims Bill of Rights specifically provides that the offender’s financial means or ability to pay does not prevent the court from ordering restitution. Far too many accused are poor, marginalized, battling mental health and addictions and without the lawful means to provide financial compensation to others.
This is why my amendment attempts to take that consideration into account by suggesting that a restitution order is to be issued “unless the court is of the opinion that such an order would impede the successful reintegration of the offender into society”.
The effort is still there to make sure that the court considers the restitution order, but we give the judge the discretion and reminder that in achieving balance in the rights of the victim, we also want to see people reintegrated into society and become productive, tax-paying, responsible citizens wherever we can. That is why a restitution order might not be appropriate in every circumstance.
Thank you.