Bill C-37 (Historical)

Increasing Offenders' Accountability for Victims Act

An Act to amend the Criminal Code

This enactment amends the Criminal Code to change the rules concerning victim surcharges.

[Catherine Latimer, Executive Director, John Howard Society of Canada]

Thank you very much.

As you know, the John Howard Society of Canada is a community-based charity committed to supporting effective, just, and humane responses to the causes and consequences of crime.

The society has more than 60 front-line offices across the country, with many programs and services to support victims of crime through direct services, restorative justice, and victim-offender mediation.

Almost all of our societies contribute to victim prevention by working with those at risk of offending or reoffending. Our work helps to make communities safer.

I want to thank you for your kind invitation to be here to speak to Bill C-37, which proposes to double the victim surcharge and remove the discretion of judges to waive the surcharge if it would result in financial hardship.

These simple amendments, in their current form, will have serious and unfair consequences for the most marginalized Canadians facing criminal law, and will place further stress on a justice and corrections system already in crisis.

I would like to make essentially four points about Bill C-37. The first deals with undue financial hardship.

Removing the discretion of the judiciary to waive the surcharge where it would result in financial hardship will lead to harsh consequences for the poor, mentally ill, and marginalized. While it might be possible to participate in fine option programs, they are not universally available, and many people, owing to senility, FASD, mental health issues, and other problems, cannot complete such programs.

To impose a fine through a sentence, subsection 734(2) of the Criminal Code requires that the judge must first be assured that the accused is capable of paying the fine or discharging it through a fine option program. No consideration of means or ability to pay is required with a mandatory victim surcharge. It is likely that more of those unable to pay the victim surcharge will find themselves in default of the order and subject to imprisonment.

It raises some very challenging questions. In May 2011, for example, newspapers reported that an Alberta man refused to pay the victim surcharge for a transit infraction, and was killed while detained in the Edmonton remand centre. Many provincial correctional facilities are crowded and violent, particularly for those made vulnerable by mental health issues.

The second point I would like to make relates to disproportionate penalties. A sentence is intended to reflect a proportionate penalty relative to the seriousness of the crime and the degree of responsibility of the offender. Victim surcharges are described as additional penalties imposed on convicted offenders at the time of sentencing. They are over and above what a judge determines is an appropriate sentence.

These add-on penalties inflate an otherwise fair sentence. If it results in a total penal consequence that is disproportionate, it could violate the charter's section 12 protections. Fixed surcharges that cannot be calibrated to the seriousness of the offence or the offender's ability to pay will have a particularly harsh effect on the poor.

Three, there are some questions about whether victim fine surcharges, per se, make offenders more accountable to their victims. Many programs—I'm sure you'll hear about more of them from Professor Waller—including restorative justice, succeed in making offenders more aware of the impact of their crimes on victims, help victims, and lead to reductions in recidivism. It is unlikely the surcharge per se will make the offender more accountable to his or her victim.

The surcharges are not linked to the degree of harm experienced by the victim. In fact, they are applied in victimless crimes or where the offender self-harms by the offence, such as through drug use. The failure to link the surcharge to the circumstances of the victim will not serve to make the offender more accountable to his or her victim. It will likely build cynicism, which is the opposite of the stated policy intent. Victim surcharges will appear to offenders as an additional penalty, or at best a source of revenue for services to some victims.

There are also some questions about the need for increase in the provincial victims services funds. The federal victims strategy evaluation, posted on the Department of Justice website, shows a significant lapsing from the federal-provincial-territorial component of the fund. Table 7 shows that of the $16 million made available, the provinces used $3 million, leading to a lapse of $13 million.

While this might have been a designated-purpose fund, before invoking changes that will hurt the poor, it would be good to know how provinces are currently using their victim surcharge revenues, and whether there have been any further resources lapsed. Provinces are also generating revenues from victim fine surcharges connected with provincial infractions.

In another study posted on the Department of Justice website, “Federal Victim Surcharge in New Brunswick: An Operational Review”, the Attorney General of Manitoba proposed a victim surcharge increase from 15% to 20% on fines. Linking the increase to fines and the related statutory ability-to-pay considerations would provide welcome protection for the impecunious. It would be a much more modest increase in the significant generation of revenues that would likely flow from these amendments.

In conclusion, the John Howard Society strongly supports effective programs for victims and victim prevention. Increasing surcharges and making them mandatory will not achieve the policy objective of increasing accountability of offenders to victims.

The amendments proposed in Bill C-37, however, will have very serious implications for the poorest and most marginalized facing criminal charges. Without an amendment allowing judicial discretion to waive victim surcharges when they would result in hardship, we can expect to see injustice and inhumanity flowing from this bill. More brain-injured, developmentally delayed, senile, and mentally ill will default on the surcharges and perhaps find themselves in increasingly crowded, dangerous provincial jails.

We urge the committee not to proceed with this bill. If it does, we ask the committee to amend Bill C-37 to allow judicial discretion to exempt the offender from having to pay the surcharge where it would result in undue hardship.

Thank you very much.

[Susan O'Sullivan]

I'm going to refer to my earlier comment, which is that having Bill C-37 will bring about consistency at the federal level. It is then up to the provinces and territories to determine if they're going to have one and what their fine option program would look like.

From my look at the provinces, I'll say that there are different things in place. In Newfoundland and Labrador, that includes letters, notices, telephone calls, asset searches, suspensions of driver's licences, federal payments set-offs, and financial counselling. They do have some things in place. I certainly bow to the Library of Parliament on their research.

This is going to bring about some consistency in creating support for the provinces and territories to increase services for victims of crime. I'm hearing from a lot of different people that the provinces and territories vary in including fine options. We hear the same thing about services for victims of crime. Criminal injury compensation, for example, is not available in the north or in Newfoundland. We want to ensure that victims of crime, wherever they live in this country, can have access to these services. It is a good direction to move in.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Of the three provinces without fine options, one of them has no mechanism for an alternative, and that's Newfoundland and Labrador. B.C. doesn't make the licence suspension mandatory. Ontario does.

In respect of provinces without fine options having alternatives, do you think we should be addressing this in Bill C-37? Do you think that in these provinces there must at least be something other than the fine option? There would be a problem in Newfoundland and Labrador and there might be a problem in B.C., because it's a completely discretionary thing; it's not mandatory to suspend the licence when you can't pay the fine.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll try to be quick and then pass my time to Monsieur Jacob.

Thank you for coming, Ms. O'Sullivan.

I just want to follow up a little on what Mr. Cotler was talking about. We had an excellent survey done by our committee analysts from the Library of Parliament.

One of the facts that was revealed was that in three provinces and two territories—and there may be other elements—their fine option programs, by their own law, cannot apply to federal surcharges. The question from Mr. Cotler was, should we condition the application of these changes by getting rid of the undue hardship but putting the fine option element in the federal Criminal Code? Should we condition it on it only applying in a province if their fine option program clearly applies...?

Do you have any information on this or have you been interacting at all with the Department of Justice or any of the provinces to know whether or not provinces are well aware of this piece of legislation coming through and whether they are prepared to change their own laws in order to create a hookup with Bill C-37?

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to our witness for being here today.

As you're well aware, victim services are extremely important and need to ensure the well-being of law-abiding Canadians who have unfortunately been victimized as a result of the unlawful behaviour of another individual. As everyone around this table knows, these services are provided at the federal level, but even more so at the provincial level. By increasing the victim surcharges and making them mandatory in all cases, Bill C-37 will ensure that more money will be sent to the provinces to increase support in services to victims across this country.

I should also mention that I've spoken to one particular family that was a victim of a drunk-driving incident. They weren't even aware that some of these services existed and were very supportive upon hearing that we were looking at doubling the surcharge.

In another tragic incident in my riding, the mother of a family was murdered. The family is currently going through all the things you mentioned in the report, including access to counselling, etc. They're very supportive, and they actually didn't even know that there were these resources.

Do you think this increase of funding for victim services will be well received by the provinces and by organizations on the ground?

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Ms. O’Sullivan, for your testimony and for taking the time to come and meet with us.

I feel that everyone here in this committee agrees that this bill is important because there are currently a lot of loopholes in section 7.37 and the other sections of the Criminal Code. We have heard from witnesses who said that barely 20% of judges order the payment of the surcharge, which makes me wonder about the remaining 80%. Those judges do not even use their discretionary power to determine whether the accused have any evidence to prove that they are unable to pay. So that is definitely a problem.

However, I still have some concerns about Bill C-37 because I am looking at it from the perspective of courts, which will have to subsequently implement it. As we know, in the R. v. Wu decision, the Supreme Court clearly said that a person who was genuinely not able to pay could not be sent to jail. My concern is that there is no provision to that effect. This piece of legislation will end up removing the judicial discretion. The discretion was probably misused in the past because the surcharge was not being imposed without any evidence that the accused was unable to pay.

However, my concern is that, by removing the discretionary aspect of this power, we will end up with court challenges. As a matter of fact, not all provinces or territories have programs that allow the accused to pay and to register for a work program or community work. Not all provinces will withhold a driver’s licence until the fine is paid.

Have you looked at this matter from that perspective or simply from the perspective that victims are left behind by the justice system, as you so rightly said? Any additional time would be a good thing and any time spent to make the accused accountable would also be a good thing. However, if we ultimately do not get the intended result, perhaps we are missing the boat.

[Susan O'Sullivan, Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime, Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime]

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and honourable members of the committee.

Thank you for inviting me here today to discuss Bill C-37, which seeks to amend the federal victim surcharge provisions in the Criminal Code.

I am very encouraged by the introduction of this legislation, as it responds directly to recommendations that our office has made to better meet the needs of victims of crime in Canada.

First, I would like to take the opportunity to discuss my role as the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime. As you may know, the Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime was created to provide a voice for victims at the federal level. We do this through our mandate by receiving and reviewing complaints from victims; by promoting and facilitating access to federal programs and services for victims of crime; by providing information and referrals; by promoting the basic principles of justice for victims of crime and raising awareness among criminal justice personnel and policy-makers about the needs and concerns of victims; and by identifying systemic and emerging issues that negatively impact upon victims of crime.

The office helps victims in two ways—individually and collectively. We help victims individually by speaking with victims every day, answering their questions, and addressing their complaints. We help victims collectively by reviewing important issues and making recommendations to the federal government on how to improve its laws, policies, or programs to better support victims of crime.

I would like to begin by stating that our office is very encouraged by the proposed amendments to the victim surcharge provisions in the Criminal Code that are being examined today. Specifically, there are three changes proposed in Bill C-37 that would act as positive steps forward in addressing the needs of victims of crime.

The first amendment would ensure that the surcharge is imposed in all cases, without exception, by removing a judge's option to waive the surcharge.

Second, the offenders who are unable to pay the surcharge would be able to participate in the provincial-territorial fine option programs to discharge the amount owing.

Third, the amount of the surcharge that an offender must pay would double under this legislation. In terms of implementation, this would translate into a surcharge of 30% when a fine is imposed, or when no fine is imposed, $100 in the case of an offence punishable by summary conviction, and $200 in the case of an offence punishable by indictment.

In effect, these changes would ensure consistent application of the surcharge provisions across Canada and hold offenders more accountable to the victims whose lives they have affected.

Because of the benefits of these proposed amendments from the perspective of victims of crime, I would like to express our full support for the passage of Bill C-37. The changes to the victim surcharge provisions have been a priority for our office due to the fact that we hear from victims on a daily basis about their difficulty in accessing the services they need after a crime. Victims also express their frustration when offenders are not held accountable for paying their court-ordered debts, including restitution and the federal victim surcharge.

Victims also face many difficulties as a result of the psychological and socio-economic impacts of victimization. A recent study from the Department of Justice estimates that almost 83% of the costs of crime are borne by victims. These costs include lost productivity and wages, costs of medical and psychological care, and time away from work to attend criminal proceedings. We also hear from victims about their not being able to afford counselling sessions, or about the lack of criminal injuries compensation available in their province or territory.

A contributing factor to these obstacles faced by victims could be the shortfall in funds that the surcharge was expected to generate for victim services and programs. The surcharge is intended to be applied automatically; however, it is routinely waived during sentencing, often without documentation of undue hardship to the offender.

Data from a review of the operations of the federal victim surcharge in New Brunswick from 2006 revealed that the surcharge was being waived in 66.5% of cases reviewed. Further, in 99% of the cases in which the surcharge was waived, there was no documentation on file of the reasons for the waiver.

As a result of the routine waiving of the surcharge, the revenues for provincial and territorial victim services fall short of what was anticipated. This is a signal that the surcharge is not meeting its intended objectives and needs to be improved.

There are concerns that the mandatory payment of the surcharge will result in undue hardship for offenders. This focus does not allow for the consideration of undue hardship faced by victims in the aftermath of a crime. Bill C-37 allows for a more balanced approach that ensures the victim surcharge is consistently applied in all cases while also providing for offender participation in fine option programs or for alternative mechanisms to secure payment.

The changes proposed in Bill C-37 to double the surcharge and ensure that it is automatically applied in all cases will contribute to more effective funding for victim services. These changes will also give offenders the opportunity to provide reparation by paying into services that help victims cope and move forward following a crime.

In conclusion, the changes proposed to the federal victim surcharge provisions are a significant step forward. They will provide a more meaningful mechanism through which offenders can demonstrate reparation for harm done to victims or the larger community, while also demonstrating responsibility and accountability for their actions.

The efficient functioning of the victim surcharge through the passage and implementation of Bill C-37 would send a strong signal to victims that the criminal justice system recognizes the long-lasting impacts of victimization and the corresponding necessity to hold offenders accountable and to ensure that provincial and territorial victim services are adequately funded. Accordingly, I encourage this committee and Parliament to ensure the passage of this bill, as it will serve to better address the needs of victims of crime in Canada.

As Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime, I am grateful to the committee for providing me with the opportunity to highlight the needs of victims of crime in relation to this important piece of legislation.

Thank you. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

I call the meeting to order. This is meeting number 48 of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, October 16, we are studying Bill C-37, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, and we have witnesses to hear today.

Before we begin, we have a little problem with time today, in that there will be bells at 5:15 p.m., so the meeting will have to end early, and we need 15 minutes at the end of today's meeting to deal with committee business.

We have important witnesses here, but I think we're going to have to shorten up a little bit. Perhaps the first session will be 45 minutes and the second session equal to that, or both of them a little shorter than that.

Correctional and Conditional Release Act

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on the debate on Bill C-350, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (accountability of offenders).

This is a particularly timely debate, as the justice and human rights committee, upon which I sit, continues its deliberation on the matter of Bill C-37, increasing offenders' accountability for victims act.

I will organize my remarks today around two themes. First, I will address where the bill fits within the government's overall approach to crime and justice. Second, I will address the specific critiques I have on this legislation, particularly from a law and poverty perspective.

May I state, parenthetically, that I began my law teaching career some 42 years ago in the area of law and poverty. One of the first books I co-edited was one that was precisely entitled Law and poverty.

The common thread of both Bill C-37 and Bill C-350, legislation proposed by government members, is that they both seek to address the accountability of offenders through financial obligations on or after sentencing.

Bill C-37 proposes to double the victim surcharge and make it mandatory. Bill C-350 proposes to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to provide that any monetary amount awarded to an offender pursuant to a legal action or proceeding against the Crown must be paid to victims and other designated beneficiaries.

It bears repeating that all parties agree on the objectives of these two pieces of legislation, namely that offenders must be held accountable for their acts and that restitution must be made. It is an objective of the sentencing process outlined in the Criminal Code itself.

However, the Criminal Code provides other purposes in sentencing. I believe section 718 of the code bears repeating, for the benefit of colleagues and those hearing these debates. It states:

The fundamental purpose of sentencing is to contribute, along with crime prevention initiatives, to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by imposing just sanctions....

I pause here in my reading of this section to note that the Criminal Code places sentencing efforts alongside crime prevention initiatives. Indeed, the two are given equal footing.

Regrettably, while we have a steady stream of legislation from the government with respect to increasing and enhancing sentencing, particularly in regard to imposing mandatory minimum penalties and the like, we have seen very little with respect to crime prevention. Indeed, both Bill C-37 and Bill C-350 can hardly be said to be preventative measures, an issue that I will address shortly.

I will excerpt further from the Criminal Code, which speaks of the purpose of sanctions, and I quote:

...just sanctions that have one or more of the following objectives: (a) to denounce unlawful conduct; (b) to deter the offender and other persons from committing offences; (c) to separate offenders from society, where necessary; (d) to assist in rehabilitating offenders; (e) to provide reparations for harm done to victims or to the community; and (f) to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders and acknowledgment of the harm done to victims and to the community.

I realize that it is not the preferred practice for members to read excerpts from statutory text. However, it may well be necessary in this case to illustrate that the objective here, in the bill's own words, “increasing accountability of offenders”, or in the language of the Criminal Code, “promoting a sense of responsibility in offenders and acknowledgment of the harm done”, is the sixth and final objective in sentencing.

This is not to say that this objective is not worthwhile or that it ought not to be pursued. Rather, it is simply to note that it ought to be pursued alongside or together with the other objectives expressly mentioned in the code.

Again, while we have seen many pieces of government legislation that address accountability, we do not see any, for example, with respect to the objective of the rehabilitation of offenders. Despite the fact that the member for Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry characterizes the legislation as dealing with rehabilitation, in fact it ignores the whole issue of rehabilitation.

This is where I believe the government's approach to criminal policy is particularly problematic. Conservatives propose, often in a piecemeal fashion, provisions pertaining solely to one objective, thereby missing an opportunity to develop a holistic and integrated approach to criminal law policy. That is, one that addresses not only what to do after the fact, after the offences occur, but no less important, why people commit crimes, and particularly how they can be prevented from committing those crimes—the whole with a view to protecting public safety and preventing the victimization to begin with.

We are all in favour of concern for and protecting the rights of victims but our objective must be to prevent the victimization and the crime to begin with.

In debates over Bill C-37 and Bill C-350, government speakers spoke of the deterrent objectives of these pieces of legislation. As I have noted in the House before, it is difficult to imagine that an offender who would otherwise commit an offence would somehow desist from doing so upon being informed of either a victim surcharge or a priority system of extinguishing debts once incarcerated. Addressing offenders after the fact ignores crime prevention as a necessary element of any criminal law policy. Moreover, doing so by financial measures alone does not assist with rehabilitation, an essential element of any criminal justice agenda.

Turning now to the specifics of the bill before us, Bill C-350 establishes that before an inmate can make use of any financial compensation gained as a result of a court proceeding against the Crown, certain groups must receive payment first. It thereby establishes a priority of debt repayment program. The first is paid to outstanding spousal or child support, followed by outstanding debt or restitution owed to the victim, such as for therapy or medical bills. Third is the debt owed to third parties who acted in good faith, followed by any victim surcharge imposed during sentencing. Subsequently, the priority is to debts owed by the offender as a result of any other court case, whether civil or criminal, and only after these conditions are satisfied may the offender receive the monetary award for use at his or her discretion.

The government has framed this legislation in terms of supporting victims, noting the need to fund restitution orders that courts may impose to address, for example, damage to, or loss or destruction of, a person's property or bodily or physiological harm to any person. Again, it must be reaffirmed that this is something that all parties support and stand behind, and was a central theme of my own tenure as minister of justice.

The problem here is that when it comes to the impecunious offender, courts have noted this concern in relation to restitution, such as the Ontario Court of Appeal in R. v. Scherer wherein the court found that:

It may be that in some cases it would be inappropriate and undesirable to make a compensation order in an amount that it is unrealistic to think the accused could ever discharge.

The reason for this is in part what the Manitoba Court of Appeal found in R. v. Siemens and again I quote:

The impact of a restitution order upon the chances of rehabilitation of the accused, either pro or con, is a factor to be considered....

A compensation order which would ruin the accused financially, thus impairing his chances of rehabilitation, should not be imposed....

As such, I am particularly concerned about the impact of the legislation on those who may be of limited financial means. Directing funds from an award may impact upon the rehabilitation of an offender. In this regard, discretion should have been built into the legislation before us. Moreover, in the cases of those with no means, it is unclear how this legislation would serve the purposes of offender accountability. Simply put, if someone cannot afford any of the fines levied, the legislation would not achieve its objectives.

Here and also in respect of Bill C-37, it is important to recall the words of the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Wu:

[I]t is irrational to imprison an offender who does not have the capacity to pay on the basis that imprisonment will force him or her to pay....

For the impecunious offenders...imprisonment in default of payment of a fine is not an alternative punishment—he or she does not have any real choice in the matter.

Again, as I noted in my generic critique of the government's justice agenda, not enough focus is being placed on prevention and tackling the underlying causes of crimes, chief among them being poverty.

In my limited time remaining I will briefly outline additional concerns with the legislation, many of which were raised in committee and might be raised in the other place. First is whether or not the bill is constitutional from a federalism perspective, and reference has been made to this by my NDP colleagues so I will refrain from enlarging on this point. Second, the bill does not address what happens to these payments in cases of wrongful conviction, an issue with which I was preoccupied as minister of justice and appreciate this concern. Third and finally, there is a concern that this legislation may deter inmates from taking action against the Crown when there are legitimate grounds to do so, such as in cases of prisoner abuse, because they would not be able to use the award as they see fit.

While the Liberal Party supports the intent of the bill, we feel that the bill and these concerns must be addressed further so as to achieve the objectives of the bill.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Françoise Boivin]

Thank you all for meeting with us today.

The discussion could have gone on for hours; we can only benefit from hearing what you have to say. Beyond the laws, there are people to whom they apply and they are intended to help people. As lawmakers, we play a complementary role. Not only must we enact laws, but we must also make sure those laws have a positive effect on your daily lives, on your work as victims advocates.

Tuesday, we are scheduled to hear from the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime. We will continue our study of Bill C-37.

Thank you.

Meeting adjourned.

[Christopher Ducharme]

I would echo that as well.

When I first heard about Bill C-37, I was borderline reluctant to come here because it seemed to focus on just the funds, the money. That's not why I am here. I am here because I want to know where that money is going That's all that matters to me.

I think it's great that we have this establishment so it's coming from the offenders.

To get back to the other question about the list, I know it's a bit off topic, but if I have a murder case and there's $200, and you have something else, and I don't know the scale, but I would support a sliding scale.

I think it's great that we're getting some funds from the offenders. The Department of Justice victims fund is an amazing thing, but it's not sustainable funding. We can only apply for one year at a time right now. It used to be three years or five years.

It is hard to run an organization when you're serving victims. They are the most vulnerable people out there. It's very hard if you have to tell them you don't know if there's going to be a group in a couple of months.

I want to talk about the cost effectiveness of that too. The going rate for individual counselling is $170 an hour, but for $170 you could have two facilitators do a lot more work than that and multiple people would benefit.

I'm sorry if I come across as pushing the support groups, but it's what Canada is asking for. I was a national spokesperson for National Victims of Crime Awareness Week last year. Everybody at the conference, every province, stood up and said they want to support groups. That's all I need to say. I really need to stress that.

[Pierre Jacob, NDP, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I appreciate Ms. Harvey's and Mr. Ducharme's being here this afternoon to share their stories with us. I realize that you don't get any warning, you don't choose to be a victim.

Ms. Harvey, you talked about the hole that is left in your soul and the need to rebuild your life from scratch. The work you both do with your associations is indispensable. Victims indeed experience post-traumatic stress. They have to put their lives back together emotionally and financially. Running a victim support association is very expensive. Some victims endure long trials at tremendous expense, running up huge legal bills.

As I have said, the NDP supports victims of crime and their families; we agree with the recommendations made by the ombudsman for victims. However, I am not convinced that Bill C-37 makes it possible to access the funding needed. We need to shore up the victims fund and enhance support for victim programming.

Like the three witnesses who appeared before you, you talked about the enormous costs involved. It's not possible, of course, to replace the loved who has been lost, but it is often necessary to replace lost income. On top of that, there are funeral expenses, counselling costs and cleaning bills. No doubt, I'm forgetting some.

Do you belive it's important to make sure the funding does indeed go to victims?

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Thank you very much.

These kinds of discussions are always tough. We can see how much you have suffered and how hard this still is for you.

As I have said from the get-go, we cannot show partisanship and say that we like you more than others. We all have compassion for victims. But since the beginning, I have realized that you are in need of assistance.

I believe that a parliamentary secretary to a minister who is responsible for a portfolio like justice should realize that we need to start by addressing phase two, so you get the tools you need. We can't be content with simply imposing a fine on the killer. We also need to find ways to give you something that is ongoing,

what you call “sustainable funding”. That's what you need, because you need help.

I've been a minister of the crown myself. Of course we don't want to bug you with constitutional and jurisdictional issues, but because there has been collateral damage from all that, what we need to do, and it's our role, is to make sure that the Minister of Justice acts as a leader to find a way to bring everybody to the table, including the provinces. That's why I'm not sure Bill C-37 is sufficient.

I believe we need to provide you with sustainable funding. You're alone. You're here as a witness. We are offering you our condolences. We feel for you. But after that, you go home and you're still stuck with the issue. We have to find a way to be responsible as legislators, and at the same time to be partners. All of society is suffering right now as a result of what happened, and in your case specifically.

With regard to my first question, I'm not sure I understood something. I believe it's not up to politicians to tell judges what to do. I believe in discretion. I believe in the justice system. Some people may be against that, but this is what I believe. You have to separate the legislative, executive, and judicial powers.

As to whether we believe we should necessarily provide a mandatory surcharge, or we should say provide a list of.... You have to understand that I'm French Canadian so maybe the tone is not necessarily accurate. But instead of saying it's $200 for everybody, should we say that for some specific crimes those people should pay more?

Do you understand what I'm saying? Should we have a list of charges and let the judge use discretion, or is it up to us to determine the charge and that's it? I think that's a fair question to ask as a start.

Madam Harvey and Mr. Ducharme, could you address that?

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

Yes. Now you're here today and you have certainly opened our eyes to the fact that you've had further costs in addition to those expenses. At that time, I think, you felt that your costs were around $75,000. There are also the ongoing costs for your own recovery, which continues.

I want to thank both of you for being here. Not only are you advocates, but you've also lived this, and I think that's what makes you such superior advocates. We all feel terrible about your loss.

With respect to your previous testimony, Ms. Harvey, you mentioned that we all pay for this. You said that we pay for it in “taxpayer dollars, but also the loss of human life, which is immeasurable”. You also said at the time, “Equally immeasurable is the loss of family, the loss of law and order, and the loss of faith in the criminal justice system and in our government's ability to protect society.” I understand where those comments are coming from, particularly when dealing with the subject we are discussing today: victim surcharge. We see that waiver happens in close to 90% of the cases, and then, even when it is charged, the percentage of collection is very low.

Because at the present time that victim surcharge is applied with discretion, the revenue that perhaps was hoped for—and I think my colleague Monsieur Côté said that it was a hoped-for victim surcharge system—has fallen woefully short of expectations. We know that victims need money, and the victims aren't just the specific victims, but the families of the victims.

In Bill C-37, we're proposing to remove the waiver option and make it mandatory. I'd like to know, Ms. Harvey, what you feel about making this a mandatory provision.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I will start with you, Mr. Ducharme.

One of my most vivid memories when I took office is a discussion I had with a lawyer. He told me it was my constitutional right to access services in French. In fact, it is a constitutional right to receive services in an official language. He encouraged me to fully exercise that right so I could clearly articulate my thoughts. He told me never to feel embarrassed doing so.

You have my sincerest sympathy. You have been through a horrible ordeal. We cannot know what you've experienced. It defies comprehension.

I was in Rome on the weekend for the canonization ceremony of Kateri Tekakwitha. I spoke to many Canadian clergy members, including one who works in Vatican City. He spoke with heartfelt passion. He could not understand how a country as rich as Canada could turn its back on so many and tolerate so much injustice. His words resonated with me. That is the reason I am involved in politics. I share the feeling of injustice you have and rightly so.

If we support Bill C-37, it means we believe that every additional resource that can be made available to benefit victims is welcome. As I stated earlier, I hope it will be enough, but I have my doubts. There have been no guarantees, but that is another matter. We will examine the bill alongside our government colleagues to see if we can't do more.

In any case, the intention to increase the compensation fund for victims of crime is a long-standing commitment on our part. It's absurd that the fund should be held hostage because of other considerations, including a lack of base funding as a result of broken promises regarding the implementation of the victim surcharge.

I don't know how both of you find the money to fund your organizations and run them. How would you rate your financial standing, your ability to act, your ability to help and support victims of crime and their loved ones?