While it is true that most Quebec cities and municipalities no longer formally deny whether or not they require quotas of fines from their police officers, the question remains taboo.
We prefer not to talk about it or, at the very least, to dodge the question. As if there were now greater social acceptance: “We prefer to punish the criminal rather than see our tax bill increase,” to paraphrase Marcel, played by Luc Guérin, in the film. The Boys IV.
Despite Mayor Valérie Plante’s recognition of the existence of ticket quotas upon her election to Montreal City Hall in 2017 and her commitment to putting an end to them—first and foremost, the “Denis bonuses” (bonuses of 8% of the amount of tickets were then paid to police officers)—revenues from fines and penalties will bring in more than $211.5 million to her city in 2024 (compared to $176.5 million in 2018). In Quebec City, revenues in this area are expected to increase by 10.2% in 2024, to reach $23.8 million. In Gatineau, these revenues will increase from $4 million in 2014 to $15.3 million in 2024.
These are considerable amounts, which are, to a very large extent, collected illegally and unconstitutionally. In a substantial essay, published in Quebec police law 2024-2025I explain – drawing on examples from current events and court decisions – why the practice of collecting these “taxes” is illegal and unconstitutional.
Security or tax collection
A few examples will suffice to convince us. In the first case, an SPVM police officer issued an individual a $681 fine (under section 333 of the Highway Safety Code, which covers the use of radar detectors), rather than referring to section 32 of the same code (the only relevant one, accompanied by a $30 fine), because a bike rack could obstruct his vehicle’s license plate. Why is that?
In another case, a police officer issued a $486 ticket to a woman waiting in line at a Tim Hortons drive-thru. Although her car was stationary and she had only used her phone to pay for her order, the officer found that she had committed the offence under section 443.1 of the Criminal Code, namely using her phone while operating a motor vehicle “on a traffic lane.” Why is that?
In other cases – and this appears to be a widespread practice – police officers issue tickets when they find vehicle doors unlocked on a public road.
This happened in my village, where the police illegally entered private yards at night (this is a criminal act under section 177 of the Criminal Code) to check if the doors were locked and, if not, left a ticket in the car (which is also a criminal offence under section 158 of the Code of Criminal Procedure). Since thefts under $5,000 are never investigated by the police, the question is: why is that?
It is hard to believe that without the requirement to meet ticket quotas, police officers would have issued tickets by interpreting the law so generously, not to say fallaciously. Or, worse, by deliberately violating it. Perhaps the explanation lies in the fact that they are required to meet their “statistics” and issue the equivalent of $1,300 in tickets per day?
Illegal practice
It is easy to see that, under the pretext of ensuring public safety, as provided for by law, Quebec cities and municipalities are using valid provisions of the law for purposes other than those for which they were adopted. This is illegal because this practice violates the principle of excess of jurisdiction in administrative law.
This illegal practice is also, and perhaps most importantly, unconstitutional in that it violates the most sacred principles of constitutional law, the rule of law and the rule of law: the supremacy of Parliament and the prohibition in Article 53 of the Constitution on adopting a tax law without prior notification (a notice of ways and means, in parliamentary language).
These two principles – the supremacy of Parliament and the prohibition of imposing a tax or duty without prior notification – arise from the Magna Carta from 1215 and Bill of Rights of 1689, where British citizens subjected the king to these principles by telling him this: “If ever Your Majesty wishes to levy a tax, he must first summon us to his palace at Westminster (notice of taxation) in order to allow us to vote by majority (supremacy of Parliament).”
This principle of parliamentary supremacy is so sacred that the king’s palace – the Palace of Westminster – has become the symbol of parliamentarianism and democracy. The American Revolution stems from these principles: ” No taxation without representation. »
Thus, by requiring police officers to respect ticket quotas, Quebec cities and municipalities are acting illegally and unconstitutionally. Ticket quotas also undermine the principle of police independence. This is why the Quebec government must adopt a measure that expressly prohibits the imposition of ticket quotas.
Also, all of the money collected should be donated to organizations that help victims of crime or domestic violence. This would be the best way to ensure that police officers do not police for profit, but for public safety.