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

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's concerns are noted.

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, before I start I believe it is my duty to inform you that I will be sharing my time with the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie.

With that, I would also like to welcome everyone back from a long summer, where we hopefully had some time to sit back, rest with our family, recharge the batteries and of course help our constituents at the same time.

This afternoon I will be speaking to Bill C-37, which proposes to amend section 737 of Canada's Criminal Code in order to double the amount offenders must pay when they receive their sentence, while making the surcharge mandatory for all offenders.

First let me begin my comments by going through some of the history of victim surcharges before I proceed into why New Democrats believe this legislation merits passage at second reading and closer scrutiny at the justice committee, where I am hopeful all the necessary changes will be agreed to by all parties.

A victim surcharge is an additional sanction imposed at the time of sentencing to offenders found guilty of a crime. It is collected by provincial and territorial governments and used to provide programs and services for victims of crime in the province or territory where that crime was committed.

Specifically, Bill C-37 proposes to first amend the provisions of the Criminal Code relating to the amount of the victim surcharge, to double the amount. Under this proposal, the surcharge would be equivalent to 30% of any fine imposed on the offender or when no fine is imposed would be $100 for summary conviction offences and $200 for indictable offences.

The bill also removes the ability of a court to waive the victim surcharge if the offender can show that paying the surcharge would result in undue hardship to his or her dependents, for example. This is an important aspect of the bill, which deserves to be studied further as there are certainly cases where the imposition of the victim surcharge could indeed cause unnecessary hardship, while removing the ability of the judiciary to apply discretion is a troubling trend we are seeing across all the justice bills that the government has introduced.

Although judges' discretionary powers have been removed in terms of waiving the surcharge, under this bill as it is currently proposed judges would retain the discretionary power to increase the victim surcharge if they believe that circumstances so warrant and that the offender is able to pay. Therefore, on one hand, the bill removes the discretionary power of judges, while keeping some discretionary powers intact.

From my perspective, maintaining the discretionary power of the judiciary under both circumstances would seem to make sense as indeed there are many extenuating circumstances in which forcing an offender to pay the surcharge would have an unnecessarily harsh effect. When I mention this, I am particularly concerned about offenders who have a clear history of mental illness and may be unable to pay that surcharge. This is one aspect of the bill that has raised alarm bells for important organizations, like the Elizabeth Fry Society and the John Howard Society. This underscores the need for more intensive study of the component when the bill reaches the justice committee.

One positive aspect of the bill, which seems to offer respite for individuals as mentioned above, is the inclusion of a mechanism that allows offenders who are unable to pay the surcharge the opportunity to participate in a provincial fine option program, where these programs are in place. They allow offenders to pay their fines by earning work credits in the province or territory where the crime was committed. Ensuring that these programs are in place in all 13 jurisdictions across Canada seems necessary to ensure that it is possible to apply this provision equally and fairly to offenders, regardless of the province where they reside.

Another important piece of this proposal, which to my mind needs to be mentioned, is the fact that increasing the victim surcharge will have a direct impact on providing services to victims who would therefore directly benefit from increased victim surcharges. This is important to note because I have heard from victims within my community of Sudbury who have had difficulty accessing these services. An increase in the funding, which these programs receive, would certainly address some of the shortfalls that have been brought to my attention by both victims themselves and victims rights groups within my riding.

Let me sum up some of the remarks by mentioning the economic impact that crime has on communities right across our great country and how increasing the victim surcharge might act as a meaningful deterrent, particularly in cases of vandalism. According to statistics collected in 2003, crime costs Canadians around $70 billion on an annual basis. Of this, $47 billion was assumed by the victims, representing a total of 70%. We have heard some other statistics, such as 83%, and I am sure there are a few others other there, but it is still too high.

One local example of this economic impact should serve as an excellent example of why exploring the idea of increasing the surcharge is, in fact, beneficial, especially in cases involving small businesses forced to deal with senseless vandalism. Back in June in my great riding of Sudbury, the owners of Azian Cuisine were forced to pay out over $6,000 in cleanup costs, for a second time, to remove targeted graffiti, which has become a major problem for business owners across my riding.

Although increasing the victim surcharge would not directly address targeted acts of vandalism like this, if perpetrators of these crimes were aware that there was a mandatory monetary penalty in addition to any fines waiting for them, it may act as a deterrent against committing these acts in the future. It is also my hope that with increased moneys for victim programs, the provinces may in fact establish programs to assist small business owners, like those at Azian Cuisine in Sudbury, who are forced to deal with repeated acts of vandalism against their businesses.

Let me be clear. The NDP staunchly supports victims of crime and their families and respects the recommendations of the Ombudsman for Victims of Crime, and any assertions otherwise are utterly false.

With that being said, we continue to have concerns about this bill, which merits further study, discussion and witness testimony in committee, particularly regarding the decreased discretionary powers of judges to decide if paying a surcharge would cause undue hardship. We in the NDP believe in the importance of the discretionary powers of judges, and the autonomy of judges is restricted within this bill.

While the withdrawal of the undue hardship clause and the provisions seeking to double the surcharge amount could be problematic for low-income offenders, this is offset by the fact that this bill provides people with the option of paying their fines by working for the provincial fine option program. I support having this balance studied further in committee hearings in order to ensure that it is indeed appropriate, especially for provinces and territories where this program is not yet in place.

With that, I look forward to questions.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, as I indicated earlier, I was somewhat surprised at what seems to be, in principle, the support that the official opposition has decided to give this particular bill. My question is in regard to the whole issue of sustainable funding for victims. This is something that we, within the Liberal Party, are very strong advocates for. We understand and appreciate the importance of victim programs. We would have liked to see the government being more proactive in trying to build a stronger system throughout Canada that has a little more consistency within the different provinces. Many provinces have different types of services, and some of those services would benefit if they were more universally applied across the country.

My questions for the member are, first, to what degree does he believe that the Government of Canada itself has an obligation through, for example, general revenues to make a commitment to support victims of crime. Second, does he believe that there needs to be more leadership in Ottawa in working with different levels of government to try to find out where we can look for best practices in providing services for victims? I like to think that we all want to do what we can to support victims.

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there was a lot of talk initially about what the Liberals were or were not supporting. They had 13 years to make sure that victims actually had services and they did not do anything. Now we have a government that is not doing as much as we would like to see on this side of the House. Therefore, New Democrats are preparing for 2015, when we become government, to actually stand up for victims.

That being said, one of the things he spoke about in his points was what we are going to see from the provinces. Those are concerns that we in the NDP have. We have some concerns that the government did not consult with the provinces and territories. That is something we would like to see, so we can question the government at the committee level to find out how much consultation was done with the provinces and territories to ensure that they are on board with this.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, while we do understand that there needs to be victim surcharges or victim redress and that we need to address these issues, we also recognize that there needs to be ample discussion with the relevant parties on what is appropriate, whether they are the provinces, the territories, the judiciary or others involved.

One of the issues that we have is with causing undue hardship on those who are least likely to be able to pay. When we look at who is in the system, who is in jails across the country, we often find it is those who either have a mental issue, an addiction or some problem, or who suffer from low income.

I am wondering if the member could comment on whether this bill addresses what I would say is the fundamental or root cause of why these people are in the system in the first place, and how we could appropriately address how to get those folks reintroduced into society in a meaningful way.

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I agree that we need to be able to find programs and ways to ensure that those who have offended do not reoffend. I think that is one of the things that we hear from victims groups and victims all the time: “We need compensation and we would like to see offenders serve their time, but we want to ensure that they do not come back and reoffend”.

That is one of the things that we have been talking about here in the House. Right now we have taken away the discretionary powers of the judges. To be able to say that an offender can pay x amount or cannot pay x amount should be in the judge's hands. If we put undue hardship on someone who has a mental illness or who has no money, are we making it easier for them to come out and feel like they could be part of society or are we making it more difficult for them?

What we need to do is ensure that this surcharge can be applied correctly and leave that in the hands of the judges. Right now this bill is not doing that, and that is why we want to study this more at committee.

[Hélène Laverdière, NDP, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be voting for this bill at second reading, because it is a bill that is worth examining in greater depth.

It is really worth examining this bill in greater depth because the basic idea seems to be a good one. The idea of doing more to help victims is a principle we can all agree on. That said, the bill as it now stands has a number of flaws, or gives rise to a number of questions. That is why I think it really calls for detailed and in-depth study in committee.

The biggest problem is perhaps that it limits judges’ power to waive the surcharge in certain cases. Unfortunately, I do not know whether the committee will be able to explore that issue thoroughly. This power is already provided in section 737. In some cases, when a judge believes it may cause undue hardship to the person or their dependants, the judge may grant an exemption to the surcharge.

There are two aspects to this problem. There is a problem that is one of principle. Once again, they are trying to stop judges from judging. A law cannot cover every specific case. That is why we have judges, and why we call them judges: because they are capable of demonstrating judgment, and in certain specific situations, of saying that it would perhaps be better to do something else. That is why we appoint the cream of our law societies and our lawyers to the bench.

Obviously, however, this government is trying, with bill after bill, to limit the powers of judges, as if this government somehow did not trust the judicial branch. So it is a fundamental problem, a problem of principle, that we are seeing in numerous cases. It is also a practical problem, because it means there are potentially people whom it would be appropriate to exempt from the surcharge, not just for them, but also for their families, their dependants.

We know the rule is that support has to be paid first and all that, but we are not always talking about support payments. We are often talking about people who live in very difficult and distressing socio-economic conditions, for whom it would present enormous problems to pay the surcharge. I will not offer a specific example. That is precisely why we have judges, to judge, and this is what they would be able to decide.

The second problem this bill raises relates to the provision that the money from the surcharge must be used by the provinces to fund services to victims of crime. Again, the basic principle seems to be a good one. I applaud the idea of helping victims of crime, but again, this idea raises a problem we could almost call philosophical.

Last week, in my riding in Montreal, Denis Blanchette was killed. I went to the vigil and to Mr. Blanchette’s funeral. Unquestionably, his close family are the primary victims. I want to take this opportunity to express my sincere condolences to them. However, there is also the entire artistic community, and the entire city of Montreal. Someone wrote on my Facebook page that one person was killed, but eight million were wounded. The victims are a very broad group. That is why we need social solidarity. But I am on a different track, one that is much more technical and specific, in this case.

The goal is to give money to victim assistance services. One of the problems is that the programs are not always at the same level in the provinces and territories. They are not uniform. How will we be able to develop a degree of synergy, or uniformity, in these services? Are they going to start telling a province that because it does not have the program they would like it to have, they are not giving it any money?

How will it work? The question may seem a little superficial, but it is particularly important in that we do not even know whether the provinces and territories have been consulted in this process. The expression that fits well here is that they are putting the cart before the horse. The first step might be to consult the provinces, to see how things can be arranged, together, and then put a system in place after that. The system should provide assurances that the money from the surcharge will truly go to victims and victims’ groups. That aspect is not very clear. An essential step has been skipped, and I hope the committee will be able to deal with that before the bill comes back to us for third reading.

There is also the issue of the lack of funding to help victims and victims' groups, which a number of my colleagues have raised today. This is one way of increasing funding, but are there others? Have the possible avenues been compared? This is the kind of thing we need to think about beforehand, rather than after the fact. There again, let us hope that the committee will do its job.

So that the committee can do its job, I will support this bill at second reading, despite all the flaws mentioned. I think it is very important to help victims. However, I cannot pass up the opportunity to say that, although it is important to help victims, it is just as important, if not more so, to prevent people from becoming victims.

This is called prevention, which requires long-term measures. But the government does not seem to understand much about long-term measures and prevention. It is prevention and education. As one of my hon. colleagues mentioned, it is also the fight against poverty, which is a major factor in the development of criminal behaviour.

It is affordable housing. When a child has an appropriate place to play or study, there is much less risk that that child will drop out or end up on the street, and the probability that the child will associate with criminal groups drops accordingly. It is health and, obviously, gun control. In fact, it is solidarity in communities, mutual support, not everyone for themselves. It is investing in people and in a healthier society.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the member a question with regard to this whole sense of co-operation.

When the parliamentary secretary stood, she talked about how in different provinces there were all sorts of different types of programs being provided. I would argue that ultimately the federal government should have a stronger role to play in trying to provide more consistency across Canada.

We might have a program in the province of Quebec that works well or a program in Manitoba that works well. We need strong leadership coming from Ottawa. If we really want to try to assist our victims of crime, then one of the things we can do in Ottawa is show strong leadership for all the provinces.

Would she not agree that would be a benefit for victims of crime?

[Hélène Laverdière, NDP, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I personally believe that the first step is really dialogue. It really is important to sit down with the provinces, talk and discuss the various experiences, listen to what the provinces and territories have to say and listen to what civil society, which often works in this area, has to say.

True leadership—I am personally and firmly convinced—is being able to listen. Unfortunately, we are dealing with a government that is not naturally inclined to listen. Listening is not its strong point.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a comment for my colleague rather than a question.

I completely agree with everything she said. I think that prevention is very important; however, it is not something that the other side of the House considers very often.

I also wanted to say that I found it very regrettable to hear the comments made earlier by a Conservative member who was twisting the words of a Liberal member out of sheer partisanship.

I completely approve of my colleague's comments.

[Hélène Laverdière, NDP, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I share my colleague's regret about some of the comments that have been made.

In my opinion, saying that poverty is a factor that has a significant impact on crime is not an attack on people who are in more difficult socio-economic circumstances. In actual fact, it recognizes an objective and scientifically proven reality. Once again, this is not one of the current government's strong suits.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on her speech. I think she hit the nail on the head with regard to many of the precursors of the problem.

I would like to ask her how optimistic and confident she is about the democratic co-operation that will take place during the meetings of the committee that will examine this bill.

[Hélène Laverdière, NDP, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my dream is that we will sit down and discuss real issues to enhance the well-being of all Canadians and to help our country progress. Clearly, the things I have experienced since coming to the House of Commons do not make me very optimistic, but I am going to continue to dream.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member talked earlier about the root causes, the reasons why some people found themselves in the system and needing assistance. This bill addresses victims' surcharges moving from 15% to 30%. It looks at increasing funding to deal with programs that would assist people who find themselves incarcerated.

A comment was made about low income. When we look at the facts across the country and who is in our jails, we will find people of that economic status are overrepresented. About 70% or more of the individuals in jail are either low income or have some kind of addiction, whether it is a mental health problem or substance abuse. That means they need to be addressed.

Could my hon. colleague comment on whether this bill addresses that need?

[Hélène Laverdière, NDP, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the bill does not address that issue at all. In fact, the government does not address the issue at all. The main point is that it is good to help victims or groups of victims, but the first thing we should do is prevent crime, prevent there being victims to begin with.

We talk about socio-economic factors. I was also talking about housing. I visited social housing in my riding this summer. The kids do not have a playground, so what do they do? They end up on the street and with nothing to do, they think of getting into mischief. A lot of us could have fallen into that category if we had been in the same situation.

Those are the root causes and they are multiple and they are complex. They are not easy to deal with but it has to be done.