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.

Increasing Offenders' Accountability for Victims Act

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

I have a couple of points arising from that, Mr. Speaker. On Prince Edward Island there is an institution called the Addictions Research Centre, and one of its roles is to examine and study the link between addictions and crime. That is something that would provide evidence and research to that point. The government has decided to close it.

The other point I want to make with regard to evidence is that under this scheme, in order for the revenues generated from the victims of crime surcharge to fund programs, it is necessary for the crimes to be reported, for them to be prosecuted and for there to be successful conviction and collection.

If the government were serious about funding programs for victims of crime, it would not make them contingent on all of those things but would fund them outright.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the comments by the member for Charlottetown. I could not agree more that the government's record on poverty reduction has truly been a national disgrace.

I can tell by the way he framed his comments that he is quite sincere about wanting to join in the fight against poverty in a passionate and serious way. I will not hold it against him, since he is new to the House, that the Liberal government itself did not have a particularly good record over its 13 years in office in dealing with the very issues he outlines as now being the problem.

There was no national child care policy. There was the gutting of the national housing strategy and the theft of the now up to $54 billion out of the EI fund. There was no living wage policy, and in essence the Liberal government at the time laid its deficit on the backs of the most vulnerable. I would suggest that maybe for purposes of debate this afternoon, we actually stick to the bill that is before us, which is Bill C-37.

Yes, there is indeed a link between crime and poverty, but by removing the discretionary power of the judge to increase the surcharge, are we not in some cases making this measure excessively punitive? It speaks to what he was saying, because I think it is particularly true in cases for low income offenders or offenders who suffer from mental illnesses.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the slack being offered to me as a result of my juniority.

As the hon. member went through the list of perceived wrongs of previous Liberal governments, the one that did stick out for me, not because I was here because I was not, was the national child care policy. I remember working very hard on the leadership campaign of Ken Dryden, who introduced a national child care policy. While I cannot speak to that long list, and I am sure I will not be allowed to do so, I do have a distinct recollection of that.

With regard to the direct question, the member absolutely does make a point. The suggestion in the bill that the undue hardship defence be eliminated is quite simply wrong-headed, and judges should be trusted to exercise their discretion based on the evidence they hear in the courtroom, and that defence should continue to be available.

I would also point out that it seems as though the justification for the removal of that is that there is a fine option program and defenders could be allowed to work it off. A fine option program does not exist in all provinces, so it will be available to some but not to all.

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the second reading debate on Bill C-37, the Increasing Offenders’ Accountability for Victims Act, which concerns victim surcharges.

As hon. members are aware, the government is determined to help victims of crime and make offenders accountable for the harm they have caused victims and law-abiding citizens.

Bill C-37 would help make offenders accountable by doubling the amount of the victim surcharge to be paid by offenders and making sure that the surcharge is imposed automatically in all cases.

The government is continuing to deliver on its promises regarding the concerns of victims of crime. In our electoral platform, we made a commitment to make amendments to the Criminal Code that would double the amount of victim surcharges and make their imposition mandatory in all cases, without exception. The government reaffirmed this commitment in the Speech from the Throne, and we have done exactly what we promised to do.

Victim surcharges form part of an offender’s sentence and they are consistent with the sentencing principles in the Criminal Code. They provide reparations for the harm done to victims and to the community and promote a sense of responsibility in offenders.

The amount of the victim surcharge has not increased since the year 2000. Moreover, we know that the surcharge is not imposed in all appropriate cases. This is unacceptable, and our government is determined to make offenders accountable to their victims.

The bill aims to remedy these shortcomings in a number of ways. First, it proposes doubling the amount of the federal victim surcharge by making it 30% of the fine imposed on the offender for the offence. If no fine is imposed, the surcharge will be $100 in the case of an offence punishable by summary conviction and $200 in the case of an offence punishable by indictment.

I would like to underscore the fact that the sentencing judge also has the discretionary authority to impose an even higher surcharge if circumstances warrant and if the offender has the means to pay it.

Second, the bill removes the discretionary authority of the sentencing judge to waive payment of the victim surcharge if it constitutes undue hardship for the offender or his or her dependents. However, the bill allows offenders to pay the surcharge under fine option programs in provinces and territories where such a program exists.

Fine option programs for adult offenders have been set up in all territories and in all but three provinces. Fine option programs for young offenders exist in two territories and in all but four of the provinces. This type of program enables offenders to pay their fine by working at the minimum wage.

In her most recent report entitled “Shifting the Conversation”, the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime recommends that the victim surcharge be mandatory in all cases, without exception. Other victims’ rights advocates have made the same recommendation.

The proposed amendments to the Criminal Code would make it possible to ensure that all convicted offenders are given a sentence that makes them accountable to the victims of crime and the members of communities.

As hon. members are no doubt aware, provincial and territorial services providing assistance to victims are partly funded by money coming from federal victim surcharges. The amount that is collected and held by provincial and territorial governments is used to defray the costs of the program and to provide the victims of crime with support services in the province or territory where the crime was committed. The federal government receives no money from federal victim surcharges.

The introduction of this bill builds on previous actions by the government to ensure that victims have a stronger voice in the criminal justice system and that they have better access to the available services.

In fact, doubling the victim surcharge is intended to complement the other measures taken by the government to help the victims of crime.

In budget 2011, the government renewed the annual $13 million funding for the federal victims strategy. In budget 2012, the government made a commitment to grant additional funding to the victims fund. On April 23, the Minister of Justice announced an additional $7 million over five years for the victims fund.

The federal victims fund now amounts to some $11.6 million a year that goes to provincial and territorial governments, to victims support agencies and to other partners in order to provide support for services, projects and initiatives that promote access to justice and a greater awareness of the services available to the victims of crime and their families.

Under the victims fund, the following activities and projects, to name just a few, will be carried out in Canada: in Newfoundland and Labrador, it will be easier for victims to attend sentencing hearings and to present victims’ impact statements.

The courtrooms will also be adapted for children in order to help the most vulnerable victims and witnesses to crime when they take part in legal proceedings.

In New Brunswick, the parents of child victims of sexual assault will have access to better services; public legal education and information resources will be updated and widely distributed in order to help children and other vulnerable victims; and access to services for adults who were sexually assaulted in childhood will be improved.

In Saskatchewan, law enforcement personnel will receive training that will enable them to recognize the victims of hate crimes and provide them with assistance; and the province’s courtrooms will be endowed with devices making it easier for children and other vulnerable witnesses to provide evidence.

In Yukon, victims who live in rural areas will have better access to assistance providers in communities served by circuit courts.

In Alberta, access to assistance services by victims living in remote rural areas will be improved.

In Prince Edward Island, the protocol for dealing with sexual assault of children will be updated and the officers working directly with children and young victims will be given training. Solid relationships will be established with the child advocacy centre at the Izaak Walton Killam health centre in Nova Scotia in order to improve support for child victims and their families.

Public legal education and information material will be drafted and published in 18 languages in the various communities in Manitoba.

Specialized training to deal with the trauma and crime victimization that is specific to Nunavut will be developed and distributed and new ways will be sought to help the victims of crime in the community.

In Ontario, victims of crime in remote communities will have better access to a wide range of specialized services.

These are only a few examples of the excellent work being done throughout Canada to provide assistance to the victims and improve their experience with the criminal justice system.

In addition to the funding granted by the victims fund, the money from victims surcharges will also make it possible to help provinces and territories provide services to the victims under their jurisdiction. This is an excellent example of federal, provincial and territorial co-operation on issues of very great importance to all levels of government.

I would also like to draw the members' attention to the 2012 National Victims of Crime Awareness Week that was held from April 22 to 28 this year. This year's theme was "Moving Forward" and it focused on the devastating impact of crime on the lives of victims and their need to be treated with compassion and respect for their dignity.

The theme also underlined the work accomplished by the various levels of government as well as by the dedicated professionals and volunteers who provide services to the victims to help them move forward and rebuild their lives.

The federal victims fund provides funding to victims' services organizations in all provinces and territories in order to hold more than 160 important events during National Victims of Crime Awareness Week.

I hope the honourable members were able to take part in the activities that were held in their riding in support of the important work being carried out by victims' services organizations and to see first-hand the courage and resilience of victims of crime.

I urge all members in this House to support this bill, because we must help the victims of crime in every way possible in the hopes of facilitating their recovery.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking my colleague for his speech. I would also like to emphasize that, as my colleague from Gatineau stated earlier, the NDP will support this bill at second reading so that it can go to committee because there are still a lot of unanswered questions about it. I hope that the committee's work will give us a chance to get those answers.

I would like to ask my colleague a question about the judge's discretionary power to waive the surcharge for a particular individual if the judge believes that it would cause harm to the individual and if the judge knows the individual is truly incapable of paying it. Currently, the judge can use his or her discretionary power, but this bill will eliminate that option.

The purpose of this bill is to make more money available to help victims. When a judge is forced to levy a small surcharge from a very poor person, the court will have to try to collect that money. Might it cost more than the amount of the surcharge itself to collect the surcharge that the judge had no choice but to impose? If so, this will not make more money available to victims.

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

Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question, but I cannot answer it since the circumstances of each case are different. Will it cost more or not? I would be speculating if I tried to answer that. For a long time now, the focus has been on the offenders and on trying to rehabilitate them. This bill focuses on helping victims. Will this solve all of our social problems? Definitely not, but this is an attempt to help victims. Unfortunately, no system is perfect.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that the member would stand up on a couple of counts. One is to articulate his opinion and thoughts on the legislation, knowing full well that there is not unanimous support for this bill. There is a lot of concern in regard to the way in which the government wants to approach the issue of victims across Canada, and how we can compensate and provide good-quality victim assistance programs. The answer goes beyond just inserting levies on fines. There needs to be a commitment from the government, one, to demonstrate leadership across the country and, two, to ensure that there is ongoing sustainable funding that actually originates from the government general revenues. This is something that needs to be debated inside this chamber, and it leads me to the second point, which is why it is that the government is moving so quickly to try to limit debate inside the chamber by moving a motion to call the question. What is the hurry? Why does the government not recognize the value of allowing for members of Parliament to contribute to the debate on this important bill even prior to going to committee?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for that question. Victims have waited a long time for their go at having fair compensation for acts that are imposed upon them and for which they are not responsible. The cost of crime has been evaluated at $99.6 billion and the victims bear 83% of that. This is an attempt to help these victims who basically have not asked for what has been inflicted upon them.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as an hon. member said, we want to fund programs for victims. It is a very legitimate objective and we support it. But now, the government claims that if offenders do not have the financial ability to pay, they can register for a program in provinces that have one. First, if the surcharge is doubled, demand for existing programs will increase. In provinces and territories that do not have a program, one will have to be created. So the provinces will have to spend money once again.

In a few years, will we have to triple the surcharge to again fund programs that will have to be created or for which demand is too high?

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

Mr. Speaker, saying that it would be tripled, doubled or cut in half would be speculation. We do not have the data to be able to answer that question.

What I know is that we will have to continue to work with the best practices in all the provinces, particularly those that do not have a system where offenders can work. We must not forget the work those people do. Usually, they do community work, and their work goes back into the community, so it is beneficial for everyone.

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there is very little in this bill that the opposition cannot support. The bill aims to intervene to help criminals change their behaviour. It also proposes ways to help victims and groups that support victims.

Our party will support this bill, but why not make an even greater effort and discuss this a little longer in order to come up with something that we could all totally agree on?

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

Mr. Speaker, as you know, there is no shortage of debate in the House. Clearly, in this case, victims have waited long enough for compensation and for their concerns to be addressed.

In other contexts, we can continue to work not only for victims, but also on other aspects of crime, such as poverty.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to ask another question.

I would like to come back to my first question, in which I asked if it will not eventually be more costly to try to recuperate money and if, in the end, none of that money will be passed on to victims anyway. The hon. member replied that every case is unique and that this would merely be speculation.

So, yes, every case is unique and one must take the time needed to examine each individual situation and make a logical, thorough decision. Judges have developed the skills needed to be able to make a ruling based on the logic of each situation and based on the individual case.

Why, then, would we play around with the discretionary power of judges, when even the government acknowledges that each case is unique?

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

Mr. Speaker, the Criminal Code concerns public order and, ultimately, it is parliamentarians who establish the parameters of public order. For first degree murder, there is a mandatory 25 year sentence. In a different context, parliamentarians set the priorities to be imposed on judges. They still have a great deal of leeway in other areas.

This government has responded to Canadians' request to provide protection for victims. That is what this bill is all about.

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am certainly interested to see this bill and proposal come forward. As we have indicated, we will support moving it forward to committee for further review.

I do not think there is any question in the minds of most Canadians that the NDP supports the victims of crimes and their families. We certainly respect the recommendations of the ombudsman for victims of crime, and I have some knowledge of this issue from the time I was in Nova Scotia. The services that are provided to the victims of crime are extremely timely and important if properly administered.

I want to say to the parliamentary secretary that I am somewhat concerned. I know this is an extremely important issue and one we need to move forward on, but I am concerned with the closure motion that was introduced. There are concerns here with the further infringement on the latitude of judges and with other possible implications of the fines on offenders. We need to make sure we strike the right balance, get this done and get it done right so that it does not come back here in a year or two in order to correct a problem caused as a result of haste.