This is crucial. This legislation has been around since 1989, and some amendments were made in 2000. There was a survey done in Ontario in 1994. The survey results showed that the Ontario revenues generated by the surcharge had declined drastically since the introduction of the act in 1989. I don't think our crime rate has drastically declined since 1989. It's obvious it's not working.
I would have to look at it like we do in health care and nursing. If we want to develop a minimum standard of care and we have a certain objective we want to achieve, there are three simple things that we do. We establish the minimum level of care that we want to deliver. Then we implement it. Then we enforce it. Anything less than that is pointless.
It's the same thing with law. If you are going to create a minimum level of law in a particular area, you need to implement it and you need to enforce it. We're not saying we want to cause hardship to offenders; that's not what we're saying, but they made the choice. Why should we suffer any more than we already do? Why should, not just victims of crime, but non-victims of crime—the average Canadian—shoulder the expense of having to fund services for victims? We don't even have in this country a standard level of service in victims' services. Some provinces have virtually nothing.
When it comes to enforcing it, there are two things that are important to me. Number one is that it is enforced, regardless. Number two is that the provinces become more accountable and transparent in what they do with those funds and in ensuring they go where they are supposed to go.
It's the only way you are going to achieve what this legislation is meant to do.