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.

[Christopher Ducharme]

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and honourable members. Thank you very much for allowing me the opportunity to be here and to speak on behalf of victims across Canada.

To attend this meeting is an honour for me. I have carefully reviewed the legislative summary of Bill C-37, and I am in agreement with all the provisions stated in it. I would like to commend the Conservative government for honouring the issues addressed in this bill by focusing on victims' needs, acknowledging their losses, and looking at ways to serve them with the highest possible regard.

My name is Christopher Ducharme. I am both a victim and a survivor. By the age of 30, I had lost five people to homicide, both personally and professionally, through my work as a youth worker in the downtown eastside of Vancouver.

In 1996, when I was 14 years old, my mother, Patricia Grace Ducharme, was strangled, beaten, and murdered by her live-in boyfriend and former Vancouver police officer Brock Joseph William Graham. This experience was horrific and unimaginable and unmanageable for years. Thankfully, I was able to find the right people to connect with to build a support network of my own, a system that did not exist for homicide victims in Canada in the Canadian criminal justice system, and still does not to a deserving level, in my opinion.

I am the president of the BC Bereavement Helpline, an organization initiated in 1986 by a number of concerned caregivers in the Lower Mainland of British Columbia. The organization became a registered charitable organization on June 15, 1988, and has served over 37,000 callers to date. We currently work with 300 groups and agencies in 76 communities across the province of British Columbia to provide education, support, and advocacy for professionals, the bereaved, and their caregivers.

To respond to the growing requests of homicide victims, I founded BC Victims of Homicide in 2011, an initiative of the BC Bereavement Helpline. Fifty-two victims were served in the first three months of the program's operation. In addition, I was able to connect with over 400 homicide victims internationally.

Given my experience, I am honoured to relay this feedback to the government to assist with future decision-making processes about this bill and others. It is of utmost importance to adhere to the victims' voices to ensure they are getting the support they expect, need, and deserve. It may sound simplistic, even cumbersome at times, or pointless to just listen, but when I see a victim interact with another victim, there is a magical moment of release. Over time, this relationship will flower into more relationships. What was once a heartbroken group of individuals becomes a lasting community of love, hope, and direction with purpose, laughter, and even joy. Finally, validation fills the void.

Also, there is much frustration and disappointment from both victims and professionals regarding inconsistent interprovincial policies. This incongruence and disparity of values is complicated for victims to understand, and does not rationalize their ineligibility for funding or support services.

With more consistent provincial support legislation, victims would feel they are being treated more fairly. From my understanding, provincial victim service budgets, under the Victims of Crime Act, have different mandates specific to each province. Some of these mandated allocations of funds simply do not appear appropriate or even relevant to what I see and what I'm getting feedback on from victims as being their primary need and priority.

Bill C-37 has clear intentions to solicit the resources necessary to implement victim services operations while reducing the unfairness felt by victims. It is truly actions like Bill C-37 that empower victims to find trust in humanity and government as they move forward from their victimization experience. This validation of victims' losses and needs yields most successful results.

Thank you for considering my recommendations for the betterment of the health and well-being of those who have been harmed.

The following concerns have been brought to my attention. It is important that each province address these issues on its own terms so that victims are treated with complete respect and fairness:

At least one peer support group should be mandated in the capital city of each province.

The counselling subsidy should be available to families even when the victim was supposedly involved in crime. It is unfair that sometimes these families are ineligible because the deceased was involved in crime.

There should be safe houses and respite homes in each capital city for when victims have to travel to other cities for hearings. There should be a safe place for them to go to get mentoring and to learn about the court system. We don't learn that from the victim service programs.

With regard to travel costs to get to hearings, the situation is different in every province. Sometimes they are funded and sometimes they're not.

The NCR—non-criminally responsible—issue is huge. I spoke just yesterday with Carol de Delley about the beheading on the Greyhound bus and justice. Victims don't ever feel as though they're going to find that justice. Their anger is actually directed toward the offender, not toward the system, but they take it out on the system. If you create a place where these victims can come together to share their stories, that is truly how we're going to help victims progress and move forward. I know this because I've gone through five murders.

In missing women cases or unresolved cases, some of those victims aren't eligible for support, which is also unfair.

There is also the issue of eligibility for support services in areas outside the province where the crime occurred. For example, in Yvonne Harvey's case, the crime occurred outside Ontario, and she was not eligible for support.

With regard to national and provincial referral systems, it took me 10 years to find support for family members of homicide victims. It didn't even exist in western Canada, except in Edmonton.

Compensation amounts vary between provinces.

With regard to applying for grant funding from the provincial victims services, I think it would be great if we could allocate a small portion to charities to apply and see what they can do, because sometimes the non-profits are more efficient. I say this with respect, because I highly respect our government, but I also respect the charities.

In the case of victims abroad, there is support, but most of the professionals, caregivers, and victims services workers don't know about it.

Provinces should increase their victims services charges to ensure that this money is collected. I don't understand how it all unfolds, but they should ensure that this money is collected.

This is just an update. In British Columbia, victims services have approximately $12 million coming into the account. Over the past several years, they've been going into a deficit on an annual basis. Most of the funds they bring in come from traffic fines. Out of that $12 million, a $2 million chunk goes to the Rick Hansen organization. I highly respect Rick Hansen and the program; however, it's for neurotrauma. I think maybe there could be a reassessment. Maybe they could look at homicide victims or suicide victims specifically.

Overall, I think our provinces, as much as we're making significant progress, are also lacking as far as what we should be aspiring to as Canadians. We have an amazing country, and I think we're all very proud to be here.

I thank you for your time.

[Yvonne Harvey]

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and honourable members. Thank you for providing me the opportunity to address the committee on Bill C-37.

My name is Yvonne Harvey. I am the chair and the co-founder of Canadian Parents of Murdered Children and Survivors of Homicide Victims Inc.. I am here today in support of Bill C-37, which is intended to double the federal victim surcharge amounts and make them mandatory in all cases, thereby eliminating judicial discretion to waive the surcharge during sentencing.

My presentation will focus primarily on the importance of ensuring that the waiver option is removed in reference to undue hardship to the offender.

First, I would like to give you some background by addressing what represents, for victims of crime, undue hardship of a non-financial nature, and following which, I will give you tangible examples that define, for victims of crime, what is unquestionably financial undue hardship.

Few people can appreciate the true impact of murder on a family, yet any one of us could find ourselves in this position. One day we are leading a normal life and the next day we are thrust into a foreign world, through no choice of our own, having to deal with police, lawyers, courts, as well as intrusive media. Our lives are no longer private.

The day that changes one's life rarely comes with a warning, yet in an instant, the time that it takes to pick up a telephone, life as we once knew it disappears, and the future becomes a struggle between moving on and hanging on. We are left with a hole in our soul. We are now challenged with reconstructing our lives. There is no guidebook to tell us how to do this, because everyone's journey is as unique as one's fingerprint. Living in the aftermath of murder is a constant emotional and spiritual struggle. These are challenges that threaten to destabilize, and often do, the entire family unit.

What does financial undue hardship mean to us? As the mother of a murdered child and as the chair of CPOMC, I can attest to the unexpected and unpredictable undue hardship that victims of crime suffer. I will use my own experience as an example; however, let me assure you that my situation is not unique. Thousands of other Canadians who have become victims of crime have suffered worse challenges, including bankruptcy.

Immediately following the murder of my daughter Chrissy, I and my family were confronted with notable financial expenses.

It cost $3,000 to file an affidavit in the Supreme Court of Newfoundland to secure my daughter's remains.

Travel expenses to bring my daughter's remains home to Ottawa from St. John's, Newfoundland, and funeral expenses in St. John's and again in Ottawa combined for a total in excess of $8,000.

There was a legal bill in excess of $60,000 in order for my brother and his wife to obtain permanent custody of my granddaughter. This was done to ensure that the person who had been charged with murdering my daughter would not have custody of my granddaughter.

I contribute to ongoing support payments of $600 a month to help with the additional expenses that my brother and sister-in-law sustain in order to give Ireland, my granddaughter, a comfortable, stable, loving environment in which to grow.

As a self-employed nurse, I had to absorb a considerable loss of income while I tried to deal with the overwhelming grief of having lost my only child to murder.

I currently receive counselling for post-traumatic stress resulting from the murder of my daughter. I pay a rate of $175 an hour, biweekly. That is ongoing.

These are undeniable financial hardships.

The implementation of Bill C-37, which amends subsection 737(2) of the Criminal Code, would increase the victim surcharge from $100 to $200 for offences punishable by indictment. This new amount could cover one hour of post-traumatic stress counselling, but it's still a positive step forward.

When the court waives a federal victim surcharge, it is required to provide reasons why it is not imposed and to enter the reasons in the record of the proceedings.

In 2006 an operational review documented the imposition and collection of the federal victim surcharge in provincial courts in New Brunswick. In 99% of 831 cases reviewed where the federal victim surcharge was waived, there was no documentation of reasons for the waiver in the file. There was no documentation indicating that the offender had established to the satisfaction of the court that undue hardship would result, yet all judges interviewed consistently cited the offender's inability to pay as the reason for waiving the surcharge. Therefore, a number of judges in exercising their discretionary powers to waive the victim surcharge are not fulfilling their responsibility to justify their actions.

Once again, the victims suffer because funds that could provide them with crucial services are not being made available to them. Bill C-37 provides the opportunity to make the federal victim surcharge more effective. Therefore, I ask the committee to support these amendments and make offenders more accountable for their actions. These measures will force offenders to demonstrate concrete actions in terms of rehabilitation. This is another positive step.

In conclusion, I applaud the Conservative government's proposed amendment to the victim surcharge provisions in the Criminal Code, but once enacted, I trust that the provinces will be accountable for administering the victim surcharge and its proceeds in an effective and consistent manner.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Françoise Boivin]

We will now resume the meeting. We are studying Bill C-37.

Welcome to both of our witnesses.

Thank you for being here today. You each have six to seven minutes to make your statements. Afterwards, the committee will ask you questions.

Ms. Harvey, could you start us off?

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to thank the witnesses for being here this afternoon.

I want to start by telling you that the NDP supports victims of crime and their families. We support the recommendations made by the ombudsman for victims. I want to convey my deepest sympathies for all the physical and emotional suffering you have been through. I understand that you will feel powerless, regardless of what you are given.

Money for crime scene cleanup, psychological counselling and funeral services will certainly help you. But, honestly, what I think will truly benefit you is an enhanced victims fund and better programs. What's more, I realize that the trial lasts longer than a month or two; it can go on from one to four years, and decisions are sometimes appealed.

So taking care of victims is important. As you so articulately explained, victims can remain victims for years, if not their entire lives. Nothing can ever make up for the person they have lost, unfortunately. But they need assistance. And I am not convinced that Bill C-37 really delivers the solutions you need. I fully agree that you need assistance, be it emotionally, physically or otherwise, to be able to move forward.

If more money were invested in the victims fund in order to deliver better programs to victims of crime, would that help you through your trying ordeal?

[Bruno Serre, Vice-President, Association of Families of Persons Assassinated or Disappeared]

My name is Bruno Serre, I am the Vice-President of the Association of Families of Persons Assassinated or Disappeared. I am also the father of Brigitte, who was assassinated in 2006, at the age of 17.

I want to thank the members for inviting us to testify on this important bill, which will help thousands of victims in Canada every year.

With Bill C-37, the government is showing once again, as it has been doing since 2006, that victims are a priority. This bill is greatly appreciated and applauded by the AFPAD. Our association has about 550 members. It was founded by victims and for victims. Our association provides a wide range of services to the loved ones of assassinated or disappeared persons.

In 2005, a year before the death of my daughter, Mr. Boisvenu received a $600 cheque as compensation for losing his daughter. He was in disbelief over the fact that, when dealing with a crime, the state's only responsibility was to send a $600 cheque.

In terms of politics, the AFPAD won a major victory when Bill 25 was passed in December 2006. As a result, compensation for funeral expenses increased from $600 to $3,300, and psychotherapeutic support could be provided to victims' families. The only drawback is that the Government of Quebec does not apply that measure to minors because they have not contributed to the Régime des rentes du Québec—Quebec pension plan. So, no compensation is provided in such cases.

The AFPAD applauds the new obligation whereby judges must impose a victim fine surcharge. It had become unacceptable for a section of the Criminal Code to be so unused. The fact that a component of the Criminal Code was so little used was an insult to victims and a lack of respect towards them.

Studies conducted in 1992 and 1999 showed that only 15% of victim fine surcharges were imposed and that only 2.7% were actually collected. That's too low. Victims need that surcharge to benefit from the quality services they are entitled to.

In addition, criminals having to pay a certain amount of money is a step toward their rehabilitation. That being said, regarding those who may not have the money, we feel that the criminals who do not pay should have administrative penalties imposed. For instance, the issuance of a driver's license or any other provincial administrative service should be blocked until the victim fine surcharge has been paid. I want to point out that the surcharge is not in the thousands of dollars. We are talking about relatively small amounts.

It's normal for a criminal who has murdered, raped, mutilated or assaulted another person to contribute to victim services. The more criminals pay, the less law-abiding taxpayers will have to contribute to those services. In addition, it may help make criminals accountable for their crimes.

We agree with the very healthy objective of Bill C-37—to promote a sense of responsibility and rehabilitation among criminals.

Thank you.

[Michel Surprenant, President, Association of Families of Persons Assassinated or Disappeared]

Good afternoon, everyone.

My name is Michel Surprenant. I am the father of Julie Surprenant, who disappeared on November 16, 1999. Following the disappearance of my daughter, I founded, with the help of Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu, the Association of Families of Persons Assassinated or Disappeared.

I am here to speak to you as the president of the AFPAD. I congratulate the Conservative government on Bill C-37. I want to explain why this bill is so important for victims. This piece of legislation will enable the provinces to raise the money they need to provide more services to victims.

In the wake of a crime or a disappearance, victims' needs are huge. Being a victim involves all kinds of unexpected costs. When my daughter disappeared, I had to deal with unexpected costs. Let's take psychological care as an example. Currently, Quebec covers only 20 counselling sessions. In murder cases, the province covers 30 sessions. That's insufficient for victims in that kind of a situation. Victims of sexual predators serve a life sentence. The consequences stay with them for the rest of their lives.

There is an urgent need to increase the funeral cost portion reimbursable by the provinces. Currently, the Government of Quebec pays only $3,300 for funeral costs, which come up to about $12,000.

There is a major need to help victims cover the costs of cleaning up the crime scene. That's why it is very important for the provinces to follow the federal government's example. They must increase the victim fine surcharges, as the conservative government is currently doing.

It's also very important for the provinces to use that money intelligently. The money should not be lost in red tape. It should be used to really help victims.

That's why this bill should be passed urgently without amendment.

Thank you.

[Joanne Jong, As an Individual]

Good afternoon, members of the committee.

I would like to begin by sharing with you the experience crime victims go through. I will then give you examples of essential services victims of crime need. Finally, I will explain why Bill C-37 meets the objective of making criminals accountable.

When police officers told me my father had been murdered, I felt like someone had dealt me a crushing blow to the head. I could no longer function. I could no longer do anything. I lost my appetite and couldn't sleep. I could no longer drive my own car, prepare my meals, shop for groceries or do my housework. In short, I could no longer take care of my basic needs. I was no longer a contributing member of society. Yet that's what I had been my whole life, until that tragedy.

When someone becomes a victim of crime or loses a loved one in a murder, they immediately need a whole range of services they would not normally need. For instance, I would have needed a response team to reach out to me and help me meet my basic needs, such as preparing my meals, doing my laundry and driving my car. All those small daily tasks had suddenly become too difficult and insurmountable. Those tasks are not complicated nor do they constitute a luxury. Those kinds of services would have helped me tremendously through this traumatic ordeal.

Becoming a victim of a criminal is not a choice we make. We don't prepare for it in advance. It is a state we find ourselves in as a result of criminals' choices and actions. When a criminal harms another individual, it is logical that they should pay the price for that crime. That's a principle set out in the Criminal Code. The damage caused by criminals should not be paid by society as a whole.

All the law-abiding Canadian citizens who are victims of criminals should have the right to the same basic services. For instance, Ontario's Victim Crisis Assistance & Referral Services program sends response teams specializing in practical support for victims to help them make meals, do their shopping or do the dishes. Other basic services include crime scene clean-up, psychological services and assistance for covering funeral costs. Those services should be available everywhere—regardless of the province of residence and of the province in which the crime was committed. The federal government has shown its leadership; the provinces should do the same by providing better services.

Currently, victims are treated differently from province to province. In addition, some victims of crime have practically no access to any services. Yet, they're all Canadians, from coast to coast to coast. All the law-abiding Canadians who are victims of criminals should have the same rights. The provinces should use the federal government's leadership as inspiration. Therefore, I invite the various levels of government—federal and provincial—to find a way to agree in the interest of victims and harmonize services across the country.

In civilian life, many fines are mandatory, as judges have no discretionary privileges with regard to that. For instance, a violation of traffic regulations can easily result in a fine of $200 or more. So I don't see why it shouldn't be the same when it comes to the Criminal Code. Accused people awaiting trial do not hesitate to raise significant funds for bail. By comparison, the victim fine surcharge is a nominal amount. I have no sympathy for criminals who have to pay it. The damages they have caused by far surpass the victim fine surcharge amount.

There is another important point. Currently, all taxpayers are paying for the damages inflicted by criminals. The victim fine surcharge covers only a fraction of the cost of assistance for crime victims. Increasing the surcharge would lighten some of the burden currently placed on all law-abiding citizens. The criticism that the $200 amount is too high for poor criminals does not hold water, as they can work to pay it off.

As a victim, I am relieved to see that the current government is implementing legislative measures to remedy the historical imbalance between victims' rights and criminals' rights. It has the political courage to legislate in order to make criminals accountable to their victims.

I encourage all the members to fully support this bill.

Thank you for inviting me and for listening to my comments on this bill, which is so important for victims of crime.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Françoise Boivin]

You will have five to seven minutes each to express your organization's positions on Bill C-37, which is currently before us.

Let's begin with Ms. Jong.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

I have a few quick questions about Bill C-37. They are rather technical or legal in nature.

In the Crowell decision, the court rejected the arguments that the victim surcharge should be considered a provincial tax. That was the big debate. Yes, sometimes, when we look at automatic surcharges, we are likely to think that it is a good way to pad the government's coffers, although the objective to help the victims is commendable. Those arguments had not been accepted by the court, because they were instead perceived as the result of the federal government exercising its criminal jurisdiction under section 91(27) of the Constitution Act. They were rejected in part because the court relied on the concept that the victim surcharge imposed in the sentencing process was an expression of public disapproval and the fact that it was not mandatory.

The fact that it will be wall-to-wall, meaning mandatory, worries me. Are we not in danger of having to deal with the same problem that led to the Crowell decision? Are we not in danger of taking this measure only for it to be perceived as a hidden tax to collect funds and send them to the provinces as a way to divest ourselves of our obligations towards the victims?

Furthermore, I am not sure I heard a clear answer from the minister about this. Should the Wu decision not continue to be applied? Otherwise, could it not be a case of unusual punishment under section 9 of the Charter, for instance? Have your services examined all those aspects?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm very happy to be here today.

Minister, thank you to you and your staff for visiting us today.

I'd like to follow up on some of the things that Monsieur Jacob brought up.

Under the current version of section 736 of the code, offenders who are required to pay a fine may discharge the fine in whole or in part by earning credits for work performed under a program set up for that purpose. According to the current wording of subsection 737(10) of the code, this fine option program may not be used for a victim surcharge. Bill C-37 would make it possible for offenders to also discharge the victim surcharge through the fine option program, where the program is available and the offender qualifies for it.

How will the time required for the offender to work through the fine option program be determined? How will it be determined in order to equal the surcharge monetary penalty imposed?

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Thank you.

Quickly, Minister, Mr. Cotler pointed out that three of the provinces don't have the fine option program: British Columbia, Ontario, and Newfoundland. We have a shared jurisdiction in the area of criminal law, and certainly the fine option program would fall under the administration of justice. Am I right in saying that the federal government would cooperate in assisting them, not necessarily financially, in setting up such systems, if called upon? I think quite correctly Bill C-37 makes it mandatory to impose a fine, and it would be left to them, if asked, to put the fine option program in this system.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

I'm pleased to appear before the committee today to speak about Bill C-37, Increasing Offenders' Accountability for Victims Act. The government, as you know, has consistently made victims of crime a priority, and this bill represents our most recent legislative proposal to ensure that offenders are held accountable to the victims who they have harmed.

I was very encouraged by the strong support shown for this bill by members at second reading. I think we can all agree that victims of crime deserve our full support, and I hope we can all continue to work together to ensure the swift passage of this bill.

The bill proposes three changes to the victims surcharge provisions of the Criminal Code. The first change would ensure that the victim surcharge is imposed in all cases without exception by removing the option to waive the surcharge. Second, the offenders who are unable to pay the victim surcharge would be able to participate in the provincial and territorial fine option programs to discharge the amount owing. Third, the amount of the victim surcharge that an offender must pay would double under this legislation. All three proposed amendments serve the same purposes: to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders for their actions, and to make offenders accountable to the victims whose lives they have affected.

The changes that we are proposing in the legislation would address a number of issues with the operation of the victim surcharge that have been the subject of study and consultation over the last few years. First, and perhaps most important, it would ensure that the victim surcharges apply to all offenders without exception. The original 1988 victim surcharge provision required the judge to order the surcharge. In 2000 the provision was amended so that the surcharge would be automatically imposed. The court could then waive the victim surcharge if the offender proved that its imposition would cause undue hardship to the offender or the offender's family. Despite this amendment, a surcharge is not applied in all cases.

Research conducted by the Department of Justice in New Brunswick, published in 2006, shows that the surcharge was waived in two-thirds of the cases over a five-year period of time. Remarkably, the surcharge was waived in 84% of cases involving summary conviction offences and 91% of cases involving indictable offences where the offender received a sentence of imprisonment. In contrast, the surcharge was waived in 25% of cases where the offender was sentenced to pay a fine.

The research suggests that the noticeably higher waiver rate for offenders receiving custodial sentences is due to a blanket waiver policy for offenders who are sentenced to imprisonment as opposed to proof of hardship to the offender or his or her family. Furthermore, in 99% of the cases where the surcharge was waived in New Brunswick, reasons for the waiver were not provided by the court, and no documentation was found showing that the offender had demonstrated that paying the victim surcharge would cause undue hardship to the offender or his family.

The research is particularly troubling as it shows that the current provisions are not operating as they were intended. Waiver of the surcharge is not founded upon proof of hardship, but on presumptions about the offender's ability to pay, and we find this unacceptable. It's not acceptable for offenders, and it's certainly not acceptable for their victims. The victim surcharge is a part of the offender's sentence.

We must be mindful of the underlying purpose of the victim surcharge to hold offenders accountable to victims. This is entirely appropriate and is in keeping with the sentencing principles in the Criminal Code, which make specific reference to promoting responsibility in offenders and making reparations for harm done to victims.

For this reason, Bill C-37 proposes to remove the waiver option in order to ensure that the victim surcharge is applied automatically, as it was intended. Those offenders who are truly not able to pay the victim surcharge without incurring hardship would have the option of participating in provincial and territorial fine option programs to discharge the amount owing. This is the second change proposed by Bill C-37.

Fine option programs will allow offenders to satisfy the victim surcharge by earning credits for work they perform in programs operated by the provinces or territories. This is in line with the philosophy of a victim surcharge, which seeks to make offenders accountable to victims of crime.

Currently, offenders who are unable to pay the surcharge are not required to take any additional steps to demonstrate responsibility for their actions. Allowing offenders to discharge the victim surcharge by participating in fine option programs would ensure that all offenders are held accountable for their actions. Giving back to the community through such work would remind offenders of their responsibility to victims and to the greater community.

Finally, the third change we are proposing in Bill C-37 would double the amount of the victim surcharge. This is an essential element of our package of amendments. The surcharge would be raised to 30% of any fine imposed or where the punishment does not include a fine of $100 for summary conviction offence and $200 for an indictable offence.

This would be the first increase to the victim surcharge since the year 2000, when the provision was last amended. To ensure that the offenders are accountable to victims for the harm they have done, the victim surcharge must be meaningful. Let us not forget that the primary purpose of the surcharge is to ensure that offenders receive a sentence that will promote responsibility for their actions.

Because the victim surcharge is used to help fund services for victims, its payment allows offenders to make reparations to victims and the larger community. Questions have been raised about how the victim surcharge is used and how we can be certain that the amounts collected will truly benefit victims. To be clear, subsection 737(7) of the Criminal Code directs that the victim surcharge will be used for assistance to victims of crime as directed by the province or territory where the surcharge is imposed. Each of the provinces and territories has established services for victims of crime and a dedicated fund for victims services in accordance with their provincial and territorial victims legislation.

Revenue from the victim surcharge is collected and remains in the dedicated victims fund of the province or territory where the surcharge was imposed. The provincial or territorial government decides how to use this revenue to fund victims of services in each province or territory, but revenue from the victim surcharge has consistently fallen short of expected amounts.

We have worked with our provincial and territorial colleagues to determine how best to address this issue because we know they rely on the victim surcharge to assist in funding crucial services for victims of crime. Many have said they did not see any increase in revenue after the last amendments to the victim surcharge in the year 2000. This is why under this bill we are taking a two-pronged approach to reform. It would ensure that the victim surcharge is imposed in all cases, without exception, and it would raise the amount the offenders must pay.

This approach, which was developed through research and consultation, is supported by the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime, whom I believe you will hear from at this committee.

This government takes its commitment to hold offenders accountable for their actions seriously. The amendments proposed would ensure all offenders are held accountable to victims, either through the payment of the victim surcharge or through participation in community service. Raising the amount of the surcharge would ensure that offenders are paying a meaningful amount, which would have the added benefit of funding the services for victims of crime.

We must continue our commitment to victims of crime, but we cannot do this alone. Meeting the needs of victims of crime is a responsibility that we share, of course, with the provinces and territories. In 2007 we established the federal victims strategy to give victims a more effective voice in the criminal justice system. In 2011 we renewed this strategy with funding of $13 million per year. In 2012 we allocated an additional $7 million over five years. Most of this funding goes directly into the victims fund, which provides grants and contributions to provinces, territories, and non-governmental organizations to develop or enhance victim services.

We will continue to work with our provincial and territorial partners to ensure that they have the funding they need to offer much-needed services to victims of crime.

I hope that we can also work together at the federal level to ensure that this bill receives the support it deserves to hold offenders accountable to victims of crime.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

I call the meeting to order. This is meeting number 46 of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, October 16, 2012, Bill C-37, An Act to amend the Criminal Code.

We welcome the Honourable Rob Nicholson, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, along with a colleague from the Department of Justice, Madam Morency.

Minister, I'm sure you are quite familiar with the rules. You have an opening address. Please feel free to begin.

Increasing Offenders' Accountability for Victims Act

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the previous question at the second reading stage of Bill C-37.

The House resumed from October 5 consideration of the motion that bill C-37, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the motion that this question be now put.