Evidence of meeting #49 for Justice and Human Rights in the 41st Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site.) The winning word was services.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Executive Director, Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies
We always support resources going to victims, but that wouldn't mean we'd support this legislation, because even if that—
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
That was my question, so if 100% of this money did go toward victims—
Executive Director, Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies
It can't. We're back to a logical inconsistency: if people can't pay, they'll go to prison, and the result will be longer jail sentences—more expensive than the surcharge would have been in the first place—and people will end up in custody.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Okay, so you're looking at a macroeconomic policy based upon the criminal justice system and overall what it does.
Executive Director, Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies
I don't know how you can't look at the legislation that way.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
But you would agree with me that some people who are criminals have never been victimized. Clearly we've seen case after case of people who are criminals who haven't been victimized.
Executive Director, Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies
There may very well be, yes. There are some who haven't been—
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
You would agree with me on that, that there are some criminals who have not been victimized. They're just criminals.
Executive Director, Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies
There are lots of people who do things for which they are criminalized, not because they're victimized. Yes, I would agree with that. But that doesn't mean that's all they are.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
I understand that.
I would like to pass the rest of my time over to Mr. Rathgeber, please.
Conservative
Brent Rathgeber Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB
Thank you.
Ms. Pate, I'm following up on what my friend Mr. Jean asked.
I read somewhere or maybe it was one of the witnesses who indicated that currently judges routinely waive the victim fine surcharge in the majority of cases, except for impaired operation of a motor vehicle. Do you know if that's true?
Executive Director, Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies
I don't know if that's true.
Conservative
Brent Rathgeber Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB
But assuming that it is true...or at least we can probably agree that people charged and convicted of that type of an offence are, generally speaking, not as impecunious as people charged with what I might colloquially refer to as a street crime. Would that be fair?
Executive Director, Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies
I don't believe that to be true—depending on the type of vehicle they have. But there are a lot of people who don't necessarily have a lot of resources, who have vehicles and rely on them to work and that sort of thing. We know from all of the work done on drunk driving that if someone is still driving, with the amount of public education that's been done about it, it's often because of other issues, including not being able to—
Conservative
Brent Rathgeber Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB
I understand the people convicted of impaired operation actually do pay victim fine surcharges because they're not impecunious. Now if that's the case, doubling the victim fine surcharge, all other things being equal, would double the funds available. Would you—
Executive Director, Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies
If they're not impecunious and they can afford to pay, then the judge already has a discretion to impose a higher surcharge.
Conservative
Brent Rathgeber Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB
Just generally speaking, philosophically, who would you suggest bears more of an onus to fund programs to help victims: individuals who have been convicted of crimes or taxpayers?
Executive Director, Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies
It's not a real question, because taxpayers pay in the end anyway to fund the criminal justice system, to fund the creation of these laws, to provide victim services ultimately because—
Conservative
Brent Rathgeber Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB
I absolutely agree that both are going to have to pay, but who bears the bigger responsibility in society? Those who caused crime or the taxpayer generally?
Executive Director, Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies
The challenge I have, and especially this week, quite frankly, is when we have a situation of who is responsible for the years of sexual abuse in institutions, of males and females, whether it's residential schools, orphanages—
Conservative
Brent Rathgeber Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB
I think you're getting off topic, so thank you, Ms. Pate.
Executive Director, Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies
Well, I don't think we are actually. We're talking about victimization created by the state.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dave MacKenzie
Sorry, but time is up.
I want to thank the panellists for being here. You've brought a different perspective to the committee and I think we appreciate that. Thank you again. It's always a pleasure to see both of you.
We'll take a short break so we can switch over to the clause-by-clause part of this meeting.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dave MacKenzie
We'll call the meeting back to order.
Before we begin the clause-by-clause, I think everybody has seen the project budget circulated for Bill C-37, and I need somebody to move the adoption.