I want to move to the court in R. v. Crowell, which rejected the argument that the victim surcharge—it being mandatory in all cases—could be deemed by the courts to be a tax under provincial jurisdiction.
They rejected such an argument in part on the grounds that the victim surcharge imposed as part of the sentencing process was an expression, as they put it, of public reprobation and that it was not compulsory. The court also added that the surcharge’s “role as a deterrent is incidental to its fundraising purpose”.
I have two questions. One is, in your opinion, is the surcharge’s primary purpose to punish the offender or to raise funds? The second is, does the proposed compulsory nature of the victim surcharge under the bill affect the Crowell analysis with respect to whether this is in fact a matter within provincial jurisdiction or within a matter criminal law?