Justice Committee on Oct. 30th, 2012

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, Delta—Richmond East, BC]

Thanks to both of you for being here today.

I would just state that there are many preventive programs being funded by Justice Canada, and in fact by other branches of the government right now, programs on preventing crime with respect to youth crime as well as adult crime. This is something that our government takes very seriously, and we certainly fund many programs, which is not to say there could not be more programs, but these are certainly welcomed by the community and the provinces.

I think we need to put this particular bill in some perspective, because the initiative before our committee would see the victim surcharge increased by 30% for an imposed fine, $100 for a summary conviction, and $200 for an indictable offence. I would suggest that in the view of most Canadians these are very nominal sums.

I listened to your testimony, Ms. Latimer, about effective, just, and humane principles. You say that in your opinion this is unfair. Would you not agree with me that it is reasonable to have a convicted individual, particularly one who is convicted of an indictable offence, contribute to the rehabilitation of the victim that person has created?

[Catherine Latimer]

First of all, I congratulate the government and would like to express the John Howard Society's support for the measures you have taken with respect to crime prevention. I think we're all on the same page on that.

With respect to offenders contributing to the victims in overcoming their trauma and whatnot, yes, I think they should contribute. I think a fair way to do that may be that when a judge awards a fine—and it's a component that you will find now in the Youth Criminal Justice Act—the province can designate an amount of that fine to go to a particular purpose, including victim services. The entire amount of the fine, which would be a proportionate and fair penalty that holds a person accountable, could all go to victim services. I think many of us would find that laudable and useful.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, Delta—Richmond East, BC]

Are you talking about the surcharge on fines?

[Catherine Latimer]

No, I'm talking about the fine itself, not the surcharge.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, Delta—Richmond East, BC]

So the entire fine would go toward victim services.

Of course, that's for each province to decide. I'm from B.C.. It happens to be that my province is one that doesn't have the fine option program; however, as a lawyer who practised there for many years, I know that they have other alternatives in place for dealing with collection of fines.

I see that my colleague Mr. Jean has joined us. I'll share the rest of my time with him.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Mr. Jean, you have two minutes.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Thank you very much.

I want to continue in that vein of questioning. You mentioned a proportionate and fair fine. Of course, as you know, I was in the criminal justice system for some period of time, and I had the opportunity to see surcharges waived on a consistent basis, even in northern Alberta.

I see you nodding your head in agreement, so you understand that this is the situation: 80% to 90% of the time, they are waived. What is proportionate and fair, in your mind?

[Catherine Latimer]

Proportionate and fair is based on a variety of things. It looks at the sentencing principles and it looks at the seriousness of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. It's a measure that reflects those two components.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

But of course that is a very subjective element for judges to decide upon. The court usually has the discretion of awarding a fine in a certain range. Do you consider that all of the fines in the Criminal Code are currently proportionate and fair or not?

[Catherine Latimer]

I agree with you. It depends on what amount of fine the judge decides to impose in a particular circumstance.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Absolutely, but right now, would you suggest that the range the judges have is proportionate and fair? Or should those amounts be increased or decreased? Or do you think—

[Catherine Latimer]

I think you point to an interesting issue. I would say they're probably fair, but I think your issue is the consistent waiving of the surcharges and how to address that. I'm not sure that making them mandatory is the way to address the judicial determination to waive them.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

The difficulty from a practical perspective is that the discretion of the judges is such that they never or very seldom impose them. For the most part, I noticed it as an afterthought of the judge not to impose it. My point is on the proportion, the fair amount. There is no way in the world that you're going to convince me that criminals pay, through fines or surcharges, anything close to what they cost society as a whole.

My question is, do you think criminals should pay financially for their crimes, which are caused as a result of intention and obviously damage people psychologically and property-wise, or do you think the state should come along and carry the burden of criminals?

[Catherine Latimer]

To me, you're bringing in some civil law concepts in the question of criminal law.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Not necessarily—in criminal law now, they can impose a civil remedy.

[Catherine Latimer]

Yes, but the point is that your measure of accountability is not necessarily linked to the cost of your crime; it's linked to the seriousness of your offence and the degree of your responsibility. You're being held accountable for what you did, not necessarily for the broader financial—

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

The question is, am I to pay or does the victim pay? That's what I wanted to know.

[Catherine Latimer]

I'd be happy to talk to that—

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

We're out of time.

Mr. Côté.

[Catherine Latimer]

Well, I'd be happy to—

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Please: you can answer it for Mr. Côté.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Before asking the witnesses questions, I would like to comment on Mr. Goguen's remarks. I would like to ask all members to be careful out of respect for our witnesses, especially since our time is valuable.

Ms. Latimer, Mr. Waller, thank you very much for joining us. Ms. Latimer, I must admit that one of the figures that you have presented disturbed me. I would like your confirmation. You said that a large portion of the compensation funding for victims in the amount of $13 million was unfortunately not used. Is that correct?

[Catherine Latimer]

This was an evaluation of the Federal Victims Strategy Evaluation, Final Report, 2012. In table 7, there is an indication for the “Provincial/Territorial Component of Victims Fund” showing that $16,475,000 was made available and that only $2,956,000 was actually spent, leaving a variance of $13,518,000.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

That is very disturbing.

My office was able to get hold of a study conducted in Ontario in 1994 by Lee Axon and Bob Hann. Those authors noted that 45% of people who received a fine were not able to pay it. So, if the fine is imposed without judges being able to exercise their discretionary power, how can you be sure that the accused will be able to fulfill their obligations?

[Catherine Latimer]

I'm not at all confident that they will be able to meet that obligation. The fact of the matter is that a lot of people who are marginalized and impoverished are charged with offences, and they may have committed those offences—I'm not denying that. But to scrape together the additional resources to be able to pay the surcharge, on top of whatever other penalty is appropriately imposed, is going to create a significant hardship for some of those who don't have enough money from their disability benefits to last them the entire month. They don't have enough groceries; they're going to the food banks. They can't make it without help. It will create some real problems.