Yes, by all means.
Right from the start, when this bill started, when it came into force in 1988 it was combined. It was in Bill C-89, and there were two bills: one was the victim fine surcharge and one was victim impact statements. They were considered at that time and throughout the years to be very.... Judges really didn't like to be told that they should be levying the fine surcharge and/or allowing the victim impact statements. In fact, a lot of the time the judges would just not do it, in relation to victim impact statements, until it was actually legislated in the Criminal Code.
That has been fixed. It has come along quite fine and is now quite well recognized, as I believe this will as well, to make it mandatory that judges do in fact levy the victim fine surcharge. I believe it has to be in legislation, and I believe it has to be totally adhered to right across the board. That's the only way victims are able to access, really, any services.
I know what I was going to say. We really feel the taxpayer should not be burdened with the provision of victim services for crime victims when the offender has actually committed the crimes. We feel more comfortable that the money comes from the levy of the fine surcharge and/or the surcharge on summary indictable offences. As small as it may be, it's definitely fine.