I think my logic professor would not have liked that slipping through of a few of the suppositions first, before you get to that conclusion.
I'd like to be clear: of course, accountability, where there needs to be accountability, is important, and sometimes that accountability can be financial. There is no doubt that the more serious and violent a crime, the more difficult it is to compensate for it, and certainly when a life is lost—as we both know in our families—you can't compensate for it with money; you can't compensate for it with all kinds of things. But you can ensure, as a principled position, that you provide the fewest opportunities for people to be victimized in the first place and, where there are opportunities, for that to be recompensed.
I don't then go the next leap to say that a victim surcharge means that it's the way to do it. In some cases, there may be excellent victim services provided; in some cases, there may not be. I would suggest to you—and I think both of us agree—that you may want to look at how those victim surcharge moneys are being spent right now by the provinces and territories.