House of Commons Hansard #146 of the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was regard.

Topics

Increasing Offenders' Accountability for Victims ActGovernment Orders

4:10 p.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Mr. Speaker, it certainly is important to provide support for victims. There are many programs that I have advocated for in the past.

A victim surcharge makes sense, but I worry about the removal of judges' discretion to waive this surcharge when they can see that the person before them would suffer undue harm. The current legislation which is being changed says that where there is undue hardship on the person being convicted or on their dependents or family, for which I think there will be more sympathy, in that case the judge would have the discretion to say that he or she would not apply the surcharge.

That is the question I would ask my friend. Even if there is community service made available, what happens to dependents of that convicted criminal in cases where the payments to the victims would mean that the family would face undue hardship?

Increasing Offenders' Accountability for Victims ActGovernment Orders

4:10 p.m.

Conservative

Kerry-Lynne Findlay Conservative Delta—Richmond East, BC

Mr. Speaker, that is the whole idea behind the fine option program. Where a judge has the discretion to determine that there is undue hardship on offenders or their depends, if a judge finds that to be the case, then the offenders will be given the opportunity to work for credits to benefit the community in order to substitute for payment.

There is an amount established. The amount equals a certain number of hours that would be put into that community service, and that is for the benefit of all.

I think that answers my friend's question, that this is contemplated. If the judge feels the offenders can afford the fine, the surcharge will be imposed. If they cannot, then there is that other option.

Increasing Offenders' Accountability for Victims ActGovernment Orders

4:10 p.m.

NDP

Françoise Boivin NDP Gatineau, QC

Mr. Speaker, I am going to speak about section 737 of the Criminal Code.

First, I would like to welcome everyone. I hope that we are all returning with the attitude needed to try to work together, particularly on bills such as Bill C-37 to amend the Criminal Code, entitled the Increasing Offenders' Accountability for Victims Act.

We are at second reading and we have to determine whether we will vote to send the bill to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights for more in-depth study.

I hope that everyone has come back with a good attitude because I still believe that this is doable and that we are here to try once again to ensure that the best bill possible comes out of this chamber, regardless of the party to which we belong. I will always say the same thing in all of my speeches.

What is Bill C-37? I really enjoyed my colleague's speech. In fact, I would like to tell her publicly just how much I enjoyed working with her this summer on the work pertaining to the Supreme Court appointments. This showed me that we are capable of working in a non-partisan way when we want to. I hope that we can do the same with regard to Bill C-37, which proposes to amend the provisions of the Criminal Code on victim surcharges. It seems like a good thing when we say it like that. It seems simple. It seems to say that no one can be against motherhood and apple pie.

I can say right away that the members of the New Democratic Party will support this bill at second reading so that it can go to committee.

The parliamentary secretary explained in her speech that the purpose of a victim surcharge is to help victims. That seems like a good thing, but it is important to understand that this is an additional sanction imposed when an offender who has been found guilty is sentenced. In theory, no one can be against such action because the person who committed the crime is paying the price for doing so.

When this was added to the Criminal Code, there were some jurisprudential debates. At the time, it was said that this was a little-used punishment, that it might not fall under federal jurisdiction, and that it was a hidden tax, because this surcharge was designed to be used to fund victims' assistance programs. The courts ruled that this clearly fell under federal jurisdiction. However, it is seen as an additional punishment. That must obviously be clear in people's minds.

The surcharge is collected and kept by provincial and territorial governments. It serves to fund programs and services for victims of crime in the province or territory where the crime was committed. Once again, I do not think that anyone would necessarily disagree with that.

Some colleagues asked the parliamentary secretary some questions. When we learned that the government would introduce this bill, we conducted a study and it was obviously a question that immediately came to mind. Organizations that support victims of crimes and the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime clearly explained that there is a huge need for funding. Many individuals have spoken publicly about how victims are often forgotten.

I would like to make an aside, simply because, in light of an answer that the Minister of State for Small Business and Tourism gave today in this House, I am not even sure that the government that introduced Bill C-37 is sufficiently concerned about the opinions of victims. The government announced in this House that it was appealing the decision rendered by Justice Blanchard in Quebec last week regarding the long gun registry, a tool supported by victims' groups, not only in Quebec, but across Canada.

It does not seem as though the government is listening to victims, in all cases, but when it comes to having more financial resources, the message was received.

My main concern is that, once again, research has shown that not all of the money reaches victims' associations. I will be able to expand on this position before the committee, if the bill passes second reading.

This is one of the NDP's concerns. We believe that being there for victims, tackling crime and rehabilitating criminals really mean something. These are not simply idle expressions, said just to make the headlines or simply to look good for a five-minute media scrum. These are important factors, because this is what is truly needed and what must be done.

Unfortunately, this government seems to react to media attention. My colleague from Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher asked a question that touches on a crucial point regarding Bill C-37: the lack of confidence this government has in the Canadian judiciary. I am absolutely amazed by this every time. We have heard about certain isolated cases during call-in radio shows, for instance. I have taken part in call-ins; I used to host a radio program and a television program. We have all read stories in the newspaper about people who served part of their sentence, were released from prison and then committed another crime. However, what the story does not relate is that for every one such person, a hundred others behaved appropriately, and the sentences were appropriate.

We need to strike a balance between the desire for immediate results and measures that can have a real impact. Will surcharges achieve the desired goal, which is to help the victims of crime? I hope to find answers to these questions during the committee's examination.

It must be understood that the bill amends the provisions pertaining to the amount of the surcharge, which, under subsection 737(2), would increase from 15% to 30% of any fine imposed on offenders. If no fine is imposed, the surcharge would increase from $50 to $100 in the case of an offence punishable by summary conviction and from $100 to $200 for an offence punishable by indictment.

There is another aspect, which concerns the discretion of the judge. When a judge is considering a criminal case, he does not do as he pleases. He must consider certain rules, principles and concepts before making a decision. The government cannot be constantly implying that judges are simple puppets who make decisions without thinking. I do not believe that. I have a legal background. I have been involved in many cases and I have seen how seriously judges take cases every day. They try to deliver justice in a fair and balanced way by considering that every case is unique.

That is often the problem with the Conservatives. They take a one-size-fits-all approach without considering that every case is unique.

We have to be realistic. I will give the example provided by a lawyer to support one point of view. A young man commits a Criminal Code offence. He pleads guilty to drawing graffiti here and there. He will be automatically ordered to pay a surcharge. If convicted of 12 counts of the offence, he will have to pay 12 times the surcharge. Will he be able to do so? The member for Delta—Richmond East, whom I greatly respect, seems to be saying that he can work if he is unable to pay.

The problem is that the provincial-territorial program does not apply across Canada. That is one more problem with Bill C-37. We cannot simply rely on the discretion given to the judge under subsection 737(5) because it will be removed or repealed by Bill C-37. People are claiming that this is not serious and that people who cannot pay will have to work so that they can pay the amount. But this will not necessarily be the case everywhere.

The other point that is often raised is this: in some areas of the country, aboriginals are often hauled before the courts and are unable to pay. There will be some imbalance in that respect. Some people are saying that it is not serious because "if you commit the crime, then you pay for the crime”. Perhaps, but if we believe in a balanced approach, one that punishes and ensures that the person will not reoffend, rehabilitation must come into play.

I do not want to see people so hardened by prison that they become a threat to public safety. We cannot keep people in prison for life when the offences they committed are not as serious as murder, say. We have to understand that these people will leave prison one day. What condition and what mood will they leave in?

If, as was done this summer, you increase the number of inmates per cell for a few weeks—the inmates are serving a minimum sentence because the judges do not have a choice anymore—that gives you some idea of the type of society that is being created.

The government claims to be in favour of law and order and public safety, two things that go together. But for law and order to reign, we need laws that hold up.

Now, Parliament is passing laws that are being challenged one after another before the courts. These laws reverse positions and thwart the work done by the committees. What is more, the committee members clearly told the government that some provisions made no sense. And measures are now being taken that are making people feel insecure.

A person who receives a fine or sentence of imprisonment and who has a debt of $2,000 will have further debt upon leaving prison.

By the way—often the right hand does not know what the left hand is doing—this week, another bill will make an appearance: Bill C-350. I encourage the members of the House to assess the impact of Bill C-350 in relation to that of Bill C-37. Bill C-350 will prioritize fine payments and criminals' taking responsibility and ensure that this surcharge is the third priority.

Sometimes it is not the criminal that is in one hell of a mess—if you will pardon my language—but the criminal's family. All of these aspects need to be considered. I encourage the members opposite to study the bill closely.

We all agree on helping the associations that help the victims themselves, that have always asked us for our help. Among others, I am thinking of CALAS, the Centre d'aide et de lutte contre les agressions sexuelles de l'Outaouais, which is doing extraordinary work in my community.

Every time I talk to the directors of these organizations, they always say the same thing, which is that there needs to be greater awareness. They are performing miracles with very little.

Victims always say that, no matter how much they are paid, they will never be in the position they were in before the crime was committed. We can forget that. The rest is pure nonsense and is just for the cameras, which is unfortunate. If the government really believed in helping the victims, it would walk the talk and ensure that the victims have the support they need.

Sometimes, it is not just about money. Sometimes, resources have to be available to the victims so that they can receive the services they need.

I urge hon. members to support the bill at second reading, but to be realistic. We need to get serious answers to a lot of questions before we can give our final seal of approval to this bill. We need an answer to the following question: what is being done in the provinces and territories where there are no programs that give the option of working instead of paying the surcharge? We need to make sure that the money is really going to the victims, that it is not floating around somewhere or that it is not being used for something else.

Another hon. member pointed out the issue with costs. The government does not admit it, but legal associations—be it the Canadian Bar Association or the Barreau du Québec—from coast to coast will tell you that there are justice issues. A society must have a justice system that holds up; a society is founded on justice. Yet we see what this country needs in terms of legal aid and our society does not seem to be concerned. In terms of prisons, we are talking about increasing the number of inmates, closing some prisons and building others. There is something illogical about this, which raises concern when we are faced with these types of bills.

We will need to get some serious answers. My hope is that the committee will be able to work with a view to getting answers to those questions to be able to come back here and say to the rest of the hon. members that yes, the bill can get the seal of approval, that yes, it is a good bill for victims and that it will fulfill the purpose for which it was designed. It will not try, once again, to divide us by saying that they support victims and we support criminals. That is absolutely not the case.

So we will vote in favour of the bill, hoping that the committee will do the serious work that it is mandated to do.

Increasing Offenders' Accountability for Victims ActGovernment Orders

4:25 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Mr. Speaker, I would like to pick up on the member's last comment indicating that the NDP is looking at voting in favour of the bill. I listened to her concerns regarding the bill. Are we to take it that it is actually the principle of the bill that NDP members support, or do they support the bill going to committee at this stage?

Increasing Offenders' Accountability for Victims ActGovernment Orders

4:30 p.m.

NDP

Françoise Boivin NDP Gatineau, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would say it is a bit of both in the sense that we ran and have always run on behalf of victims in Canada.

We have always said we wanted to be there for victims, and it is a question of finding how we can better be there for them. In itself it is not a bad idea that the bill is based on the fact that it is supposed to be money to help victims and associations for victims.

That being said, we also want to make sure, before we give our final seal of approval, that we get the answers to all the questions we have, and there are serious questions on Bill C-37. For example, are we sure the money would go to victims? Would the discretion be removed that judges used to have when somebody has an incapacity to pay the surcharge? Also, if there is a province or territory that does not have these programs, what do we do? Would it be fair for these people? Is it just? We have a few questions that I hope will be answered in committee.

Increasing Offenders' Accountability for Victims ActGovernment Orders

4:30 p.m.

NDP

Christine Moore NDP Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC

Mr. Speaker, could the hon. member clarify something for me? I apologize for my ignorance, but I am not sure about something.

Is the victim surcharge based on a person's income? Take for example someone who earns $1 million a year. Will that person receive a higher fine—because they have a higher income to pay it—than someone who makes $10,000 a year?

I would greatly appreciate it if the hon. member could clarify that for me.

Increasing Offenders' Accountability for Victims ActGovernment Orders

4:30 p.m.

NDP

Françoise Boivin NDP Gatineau, QC

Mr. Speaker, that is a good question. The idea is that the surcharge is the same for everyone. Having said that, a section in the Criminal Code allows a judge to impose a higher surcharge on someone deemed to be able to pay it. In that case, it would be possible to impose a higher surcharge. It is the same surcharge, but it is already set out in the Criminal Code.

Increasing Offenders' Accountability for Victims ActGovernment Orders

4:30 p.m.

NDP

Ève Péclet NDP La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC

Mr. Speaker, I will trust the hon. member, because I know that she is a lawyer. I am sure that she knows these crime issues inside out.

Is the government relying on studies or statistics showing that surcharges imposed on criminals reduce the crime rate? I am trying to establish a link. We all have a common goal here: to reduce crime and to ensure that our criminal justice system works well.

In practical terms, what are the arguments or the facts that support the government's measures?

Increasing Offenders' Accountability for Victims ActGovernment Orders

4:30 p.m.

NDP

Françoise Boivin NDP Gatineau, QC

That is a good question, Mr. Speaker, and we will be sure to ask it during the committee meetings.

Honestly, I did not hear in the speech of the hon. member opposite, the member for Delta—Richmond East who spoke on behalf of the government, that the government used major statistics to conclude that imposing a surcharge would reduce crime. I will not justify the government's position on that. Personally, I do not think that it will have a compelling effect on criminals. Having to pay a surcharge will not prevent them from committing a crime. I do think that a minimum sentence will make a criminal stop and think before he commits a crime that he will have to serve a minimum prison sentence.

The purpose of the bill is to find ways to get more money to help the victims of criminal offences, which is what the federal ombudsman for victims of crime has always been after. The NDP has always been at the forefront in this respect. Now, surcharges will help fund these programs and that is what they should be used for. It remains to be seen if that, in fact, will be the case.

Increasing Offenders' Accountability for Victims ActGovernment Orders

4:35 p.m.

NDP

Pierre Nantel NDP Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague a question about the statement by the member for Delta—Richmond East. I was somewhat struck by her statement that the idea of withdrawing the discretionary power of judges was based on the fact that supporting figures show that we have not managed to accumulate the basic funds required to help victims.

I find it somewhat convoluted to take away the discretionary power from judges for the sake of money. That money could come from elsewhere, could it not?

Increasing Offenders' Accountability for Victims ActGovernment Orders

4:35 p.m.

NDP

Françoise Boivin NDP Gatineau, QC

Mr. Speaker, that is quite right, it could come from elsewhere. Quite often, organizations or victims do not turn to the surcharge program alone.

I found the answer very strange and interesting at the same time, and it certainly warrants further study in committee. The Conservative government seems to interfere wherever there is discretion, whether in sentencing or in the matter of surcharges. Discretion must take into account the factors mentioned. The same thing applies to discretion used in imposing a surcharge. Judges did not impose a surcharge based on whether or not they liked the person. It did not work like that. The judge had to hear all the arguments proving that the offender could not pay. He would not base that decision on a yes or no answer. Furthermore, he had to put his decision in writing.

If we want to examine this in depth, I am sure that we could look at all the sentences where the judges set aside the surcharge based on subsection 737(5) and stated their reasons in writing under subsection 737(6). It would be interesting to see what reasons the court gave in support of the decision.

If we want to do serious work in committee, we could approach it intelligently in order to determine whether the only reason the Conservatives want to eliminate discretion is to ensure that the money is paid to the program and can be distributed to the victims. We shall see.

Increasing Offenders' Accountability for Victims ActGovernment Orders

4:35 p.m.

NDP

Pierre Jacob NDP Brome—Missisquoi, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague if she believes that the provinces and the territories were consulted before this bill was drafted and why consultation is important.

Increasing Offenders' Accountability for Victims ActGovernment Orders

4:35 p.m.

NDP

Françoise Boivin NDP Gatineau, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague very much for the question because it is exactly the same question, word for word, that I asked the member for Delta—Richmond East to which I am not sure I received an answer. The government tells me it is still consulting. From what I have heard from the ministers of justice of the provinces and territories that I have spoken to, whether on this subject or on other things, I am not convinced that the lines of communication are quite so open. I am not convinced that in Quebec, where the party in power before the last election was federalist, the lines were really open. There are still a lot of answers to be given and a lot of questions to be asked.

Increasing Offenders' Accountability for Victims ActGovernment Orders

4:35 p.m.

Liberal

Sean Casey Liberal Charlottetown, PE

Mr. Speaker, as you know, I am a relatively new member here, representing the people of Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, which also happens to be the birthplace of Canada. I believe we live in one of the best countries in the world, and yet, something is wrong in Canada today.

Today we are speaking on a bill that would increase fines given to convicted criminals, the so-called “victims of crime surcharge”. As with many of the crime bills tabled in the House of Commons, it is a bill that on its face seems easy to accept. However, it is not acceptable. The politicization of the Criminal Code is in full swing, and I suppose that is the point in this day and age.

In today's Conservative Canada we now have a permanent political campaign. What was once thought of as an American political trait has now been imported into Canada. No longer will we have a justice system that is just and fair; the Conservative approach is not balanced or proportional. We now find ourselves in a situation where good public policy is traded for political marketing.

However, today I want to speak about poverty in Canada. I want to speak about the widening gap between those of us who have and those who have not. I want to speak about the intersection between poverty and crime.

As I mentioned previously, we know crime rates, particularly rates of serious crimes, have come down over the past several decades. Those facts are not in dispute among those who respect and value evidence. It is therefore a massive moral failure on our part to de-link crime from poverty.

Allow me to take a few moments to explain what I mean.

Poverty is a very serious social, economic and political problem in Canada. It is a problem that calls for us to take action that is worthy of our country and our strong moral tradition.

As Canadians, we are all concerned, as we also are about the fact that poverty persists in Canada. Poverty, and the widening income gap, are a serious threat to social cohesion in Canada. Combating and eradicating poverty calls for an effective approach to be taken, to make Canada a better, more egalitarian and more just society.

Let us compare this with what we see in Canada today. These days, politics dominates everything. Division and extreme partisanship are the watchword in our political discourse now. We have a government that sees only one solution when it encounters a complex social problem like poverty and its links with crime: put more people in prison.

Those of us who respect the past know that history has lessons to teach us. In the past, when Canada encountered a serious, nation-wide problem, we did what Canadians often do: we investigated the facts and looked for the truth. We were not afraid of the facts, because we used them to shape public policy, not vice versa.

Poverty is one of those problems, and it should transcend political and jurisdictional divisions.

I will give a few examples of Canadians coming together to tackle tough issues. When Canadians faced and confronted terrorism in the Air India bombing, we acted. We established an inquiry led by the hon. member for Toronto Centre. We sought answers, reasons, remedies and solutions, and we sought to bring closure to those families affected by that tragedy.

When we as a country began struggling in the 1980s with implications of new and emerging technology on reproduction, we struck a royal commission to assess the moral, ethical and legislative implications of those new technologies.

When Canadians were confronted with the tainted blood scandal that affected to many Canadians, we struck an inquiry to discover what happened and find remedies and solutions.

When Canadians were confronted with the decision to have economic ties with the United States, we created a free trade inquiry called the Macdonald Royal Commission. We did so to get the facts, to hear from people and to use those facts to guide our decisions.

In times past, we confronted great challenges, not with slogans and silly appellations for parliamentary bills but by deploying our best and brightest in search of facts that would lead to meaningful and realistic solutions.

The growing gap between those who have and those who have not, the persistence of poverty and its relation to crime are real and present dangers to social cohesiveness in Canada.

We cannot afford to stand aside and do what we are doing, which is little. We cannot dismissively say that poverty is a provincial matter, as the Prime Minister said in 1995, while at the same time suggest with one eye closed that the only solution to the consequence of poverty is to incarcerate more people. It is immoral to give any credibility to that approach. In fact, we should consider a royal commission on poverty in Canada.

It is astonishing to me that with all of our successes, for all of our difficulties, for all of our wealth, for all of our modernity, a country with a first world economy and a country whose heart is as big as the land it inhabits, is still a place where poverty exists and at levels that are unworthy of us all. It requires us to be bold, to do what is right and to bring all Canadians together to fight poverty.

With the greatest respect to my colleagues on the other side, it is not right or just for any prime minister from any political party to suggest, as our current Prime Minister has, that poverty is a provincial problem, end of story. That is not who we are. That is not the Canadian way.

The world is big and yet we are more and more connected and interdependent than in any other period in history. This is not only true of the world but here in Canada. We can ill-afford to put ourselves in jurisdictional straitjackets and say that it is someone else's issue. Poverty is a problem that we all have a responsibility to combat.

I will now address the link between poverty and crime. I believe poverty is the engine that drives crime in Canada. Poverty limits hope, poverty limits an individual's full potential and poverty at its core ghettoizes communities. It is poverty that forces women who, in attempting to raise a child with no money or no hope, to turn to prostitution. It is poverty that causes a young man who comes from nothing to turn to drugs to find solace and to escape reality. Poverty is a vicious circle and one that must be broken.

All of us here today have our own story but we are here today not only because of our own doing but with the help and support of family, friends and our communities. However, our stories are so much different than the millions of Canadians confined to a state of poverty that in most instances goes back generations. We cannot turn a blind eye to poverty and say that it is not our problem.

The 18-year-old who woke up this morning and who has lived a life of abuse, has mental health issues, comes from a broken family and whose life has been wrapped up in poverty will not be making plans as many of us will here today deciding on which restaurant we will go to this evening. That 18-year-old does not have that choice.

It is they, the poor, the marginalized, those on the periphery of success and opportunity, who see the world not as we see it but something quite different. It is poverty that is the engine that is driving crime.

In a recent article in one of our leading newspapers, anti-poverty advocate and Conservative senator Hugh Segal said the following:

While all those Canadians who live beneath the poverty line are by no means associated with criminal activity, almost all those in Canada’s prisons come from beneath the poverty line. Less than 10 per cent of Canadians live beneath the poverty line but almost 100 per cent of our prison inmates come from that 10 per cent. There is no political ideology, on the right or left, that would make the case that people living in poverty belong in jail.

Can we honestly say with unburdened hearts that the only solution to these difficult and complex issues is to find more ways to put them in jail. Is that the best we can do? Is that what Canada has become?

Yet, today, we are contemplating a bill that would increase monetary penalties and remove the ability of a convicted criminal to seek relief from those financial penalties. Why? It is because for most of them they simply do not have the money. The vast majority of people convicted of a crime in Canada can trace their circumstances to poverty. Under this bill, they would be required to pay even more, even though they can ill-afford to do so.

We should never condone or excuse criminal behaviour but we should also be open to explaining it. Again, it is poverty that drives crime.

How can we, as parliamentarians claiming a conscience, stand idly by when we know that aboriginals, who make up just 4% of our population, represent 20% of our prison population? That percentage would increase with the new crime measures imposed by the government. It is the lifting of people out of poverty that will further reduce crime rates.

I will take a few moments to highlight some statistics. If I am unable to convince colleagues of the social justice implications here, perhaps I can convince people that it makes economic sense to lift people out of the cycle of poverty.

The cost of poverty to Canada has been estimated at $72 billion to $86 billion per year, or about 5% to 6% of GDP. Almost 900,000 Canadians used food banks each month in 2010 and 38% of them were children. Three point one million households pay more than 30% of their income on housing, making them housing insecure. There are 150,000 to 300,000 visible homeless.

A recent study found a 21-year difference in life expectancy between some of the poorest neighbourhoods and the wealthiest neighbourhoods in some parts of Canada.

Poverty costs Canada's health care system $7.6 billion per year, according to the Ontario Association of Food Banks.

One in three, or 33%, of low-income children had at least one parent who worked full time through the year in 2008 and still lived in poverty.

In 2010, 59% of Canadian workers lived paycheque to paycheque and indicated that they would be in financial difficulty if their cheque were delayed by a week.

In 2009, per capita household debt in Canada was $41,740, which is two and a half times higher than it was in 1989.

In 2009, the average annual income, $6.6 million, of Canada's best paid CEOs was 155 times higher than the average worker's income.

A third of all income growth in Canada over the two past decades has gone to the richest 1% of Canadians, with 3.8% of households controlling 67% of total household wealth.

Those are staggering numbers. The correlation between poverty and crime is not fiction and it is not a Liberal idea.

A recent study conducted by the Toronto Star and referenced by Conservative Senator Segal found the following: More than 70% of those who enter prisons have not completed high school; 70% of offenders entering prisons have unstable job histories; and four of every five arrive with serious substance abuse problems. Sending more people to prison, appearing tough on crime, or enacting legislation that is punitive at its core will not solve the problem of crime in Canada. Poverty is at the root of crime in Canada.

I will close with this compelling quote, again from Conservative Senator Segal. He said:

In a modern, competitive and compassionate society like ours, these numbers are unacceptable. If Canadians want to wage an effective war on crime we must first reshape the debate. If crime abatement is the goal, it is time for all Canadians and their governments to become tough on poverty. By doing so, the outcomes we all want — safer communities and diminishing prison populations — will follow.

Increasing Offenders' Accountability for Victims ActGovernment Orders

4:50 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Barry Devolin

Before we go to questions and comments, it is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, Health; the hon. member for Manicouagan, Aboriginal Affairs.

Increasing Offenders' Accountability for Victims ActGovernment Orders

4:50 p.m.

Conservative

Robert Sopuck Conservative Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my hon. friend's comments and, with all due respect, I found them very insulting to Canadians who live on low incomes. It is almost as if people who have low incomes are automatically guaranteed to commit crimes, which is appalling.

In my constituency, there are many low-income constituents, people who get along very well on what we would consider low incomes and yet the crime rate in my constituency is very low. Why is that? I would argue that those people have the right values.

What role does my hon. friend think people's values play, regardless of their incomes, in terms of their propensity to commit crimes? How important does he think an individual's values are?

Increasing Offenders' Accountability for Victims ActGovernment Orders

4:55 p.m.

Liberal

Sean Casey Liberal Charlottetown, PE

Mr. Speaker, there is no question that one's values are at the very core of what makes up a person. However, a question of that nature, once again, absolutely and unequivocally ignores the evidence. The evidence is indisputable that poverty drives crime and that our prisons are overrepresented with people who have low incomes.

Quite frankly, if people live in poverty, the odds are stacked against them. This bill would not help but exacerbate that.

Increasing Offenders' Accountability for Victims ActGovernment Orders

4:55 p.m.

NDP

Anne-Marie Day NDP Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC

Mr. Speaker, the NDP supports families and victims of violence. In the past, many of us have worked with victims of violence who have gone to groups. It is important to increase funding to help those people. We are 100% for that approach.

Obviously, removing judicial discretion poses a problem. The problem, as rightly stated before, is this: if you are caught speeding—which has nothing to do with the problem at hand—you receive the same fine, whether you earn $300 a week working in a convenience store or $1 million a year. A judge with discretionary power would be able to step in.

The hon. member for Charlottetown has done a fine job of demonstrating that the poorest are affected. We know that, in our prisons, we often find the poorest in society, because they have a lot of problems, such as dropping out of school. The poorest members in our society will get higher penalties, because judges will no longer have the discretionary power to reduce the penalty.

Does the hon. member not think that the cycle of poverty will become bigger and that those people will be trapped in a vicious circle from which they will not be able to escape?

Increasing Offenders' Accountability for Victims ActGovernment Orders

4:55 p.m.

Liberal

Sean Casey Liberal Charlottetown, PE

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member. It is true that this bill will make poverty problems in our society bigger. It will not reduce the crime rate, and the cycle of poverty will continue.

I am in complete agreement with the premise of the question. I share the hon. member's concerns with respect to the removal of judicial discretion. There are fine people appointed as judges in this country and they should be allowed to do their jobs. This bill would remove an element of judicial discretion that is critical in assessing the individual circumstances of each offender and would only serve to worsen the circumstances of those most vulnerable.

Increasing Offenders' Accountability for Victims ActGovernment Orders

4:55 p.m.

Liberal

John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON

Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment the hon. member for his thoughtful speech. It bore some echoes to a couple of town halls that I held in my riding in the last few months. What are called the Danzig shootings happened in my riding and I had a couple of town halls. I canvassed the area three times and started to get a feel for the concerns of the constituents.

First, they bitterly resented outsiders coming in and their community being labelled a crime community.

The second thing they mentioned speaks to the issue that the hon. member raised, namely jobs and opportunities. There is a lot of regrettable unemployment in this particular area with people who have time on their hands.

The third thing they said was that they wanted a police relationship, not just a police presence, and therein lies a huge difference.

The fourth thing they said was that they did not need any more laws, but they did need evidence. The police and the community agreed that the laws were fine. What they needed was the evidence to prosecute fully, within the meaning of that phrase, under the Criminal Code.

Without my having had any direct conversation with him, his speech eerily relates to and reflects what I heard at community hall meetings this summer.

Increasing Offenders' Accountability for Victims ActGovernment Orders

5 p.m.

Liberal

Sean Casey Liberal Charlottetown, PE

I have a couple of points arising from that, Mr. Speaker. On Prince Edward Island there is an institution called the Addictions Research Centre, and one of its roles is to examine and study the link between addictions and crime. That is something that would provide evidence and research to that point. The government has decided to close it.

The other point I want to make with regard to evidence is that under this scheme, in order for the revenues generated from the victims of crime surcharge to fund programs, it is necessary for the crimes to be reported, for them to be prosecuted and for there to be successful conviction and collection.

If the government were serious about funding programs for victims of crime, it would not make them contingent on all of those things but would fund them outright.

Increasing Offenders' Accountability for Victims ActGovernment Orders

5 p.m.

NDP

Chris Charlton NDP Hamilton Mountain, ON

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the comments by the member for Charlottetown. I could not agree more that the government's record on poverty reduction has truly been a national disgrace.

I can tell by the way he framed his comments that he is quite sincere about wanting to join in the fight against poverty in a passionate and serious way. I will not hold it against him, since he is new to the House, that the Liberal government itself did not have a particularly good record over its 13 years in office in dealing with the very issues he outlines as now being the problem.

There was no national child care policy. There was the gutting of the national housing strategy and the theft of the now up to $54 billion out of the EI fund. There was no living wage policy, and in essence the Liberal government at the time laid its deficit on the backs of the most vulnerable. I would suggest that maybe for purposes of debate this afternoon, we actually stick to the bill that is before us, which is Bill C-37.

Yes, there is indeed a link between crime and poverty, but by removing the discretionary power of the judge to increase the surcharge, are we not in some cases making this measure excessively punitive? It speaks to what he was saying, because I think it is particularly true in cases for low income offenders or offenders who suffer from mental illnesses.

Increasing Offenders' Accountability for Victims ActGovernment Orders

5 p.m.

Liberal

Sean Casey Liberal Charlottetown, PE

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the slack being offered to me as a result of my juniority.

As the hon. member went through the list of perceived wrongs of previous Liberal governments, the one that did stick out for me, not because I was here because I was not, was the national child care policy. I remember working very hard on the leadership campaign of Ken Dryden, who introduced a national child care policy. While I cannot speak to that long list, and I am sure I will not be allowed to do so, I do have a distinct recollection of that.

With regard to the direct question, the member absolutely does make a point. The suggestion in the bill that the undue hardship defence be eliminated is quite simply wrong-headed, and judges should be trusted to exercise their discretion based on the evidence they hear in the courtroom, and that defence should continue to be available.

I would also point out that it seems as though the justification for the removal of that is that there is a fine option program and defenders could be allowed to work it off. A fine option program does not exist in all provinces, so it will be available to some but not to all.

Increasing Offenders' Accountability for Victims ActGovernment Orders

5 p.m.

Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe New Brunswick

Conservative

Robert Goguen ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the second reading debate on Bill C-37, the Increasing Offenders’ Accountability for Victims Act, which concerns victim surcharges.

As hon. members are aware, the government is determined to help victims of crime and make offenders accountable for the harm they have caused victims and law-abiding citizens.

Bill C-37 would help make offenders accountable by doubling the amount of the victim surcharge to be paid by offenders and making sure that the surcharge is imposed automatically in all cases.

The government is continuing to deliver on its promises regarding the concerns of victims of crime. In our electoral platform, we made a commitment to make amendments to the Criminal Code that would double the amount of victim surcharges and make their imposition mandatory in all cases, without exception. The government reaffirmed this commitment in the Speech from the Throne, and we have done exactly what we promised to do.

Victim surcharges form part of an offender’s sentence and they are consistent with the sentencing principles in the Criminal Code. They provide reparations for the harm done to victims and to the community and promote a sense of responsibility in offenders.

The amount of the victim surcharge has not increased since the year 2000. Moreover, we know that the surcharge is not imposed in all appropriate cases. This is unacceptable, and our government is determined to make offenders accountable to their victims.

The bill aims to remedy these shortcomings in a number of ways. First, it proposes doubling the amount of the federal victim surcharge by making it 30% of the fine imposed on the offender for the offence. If no fine is imposed, the surcharge will be $100 in the case of an offence punishable by summary conviction and $200 in the case of an offence punishable by indictment.

I would like to underscore the fact that the sentencing judge also has the discretionary authority to impose an even higher surcharge if circumstances warrant and if the offender has the means to pay it.

Second, the bill removes the discretionary authority of the sentencing judge to waive payment of the victim surcharge if it constitutes undue hardship for the offender or his or her dependents. However, the bill allows offenders to pay the surcharge under fine option programs in provinces and territories where such a program exists.

Fine option programs for adult offenders have been set up in all territories and in all but three provinces. Fine option programs for young offenders exist in two territories and in all but four of the provinces. This type of program enables offenders to pay their fine by working at the minimum wage.

In her most recent report entitled “Shifting the Conversation”, the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime recommends that the victim surcharge be mandatory in all cases, without exception. Other victims’ rights advocates have made the same recommendation.

The proposed amendments to the Criminal Code would make it possible to ensure that all convicted offenders are given a sentence that makes them accountable to the victims of crime and the members of communities.

As hon. members are no doubt aware, provincial and territorial services providing assistance to victims are partly funded by money coming from federal victim surcharges. The amount that is collected and held by provincial and territorial governments is used to defray the costs of the program and to provide the victims of crime with support services in the province or territory where the crime was committed. The federal government receives no money from federal victim surcharges.

The introduction of this bill builds on previous actions by the government to ensure that victims have a stronger voice in the criminal justice system and that they have better access to the available services.

In fact, doubling the victim surcharge is intended to complement the other measures taken by the government to help the victims of crime.

In budget 2011, the government renewed the annual $13 million funding for the federal victims strategy. In budget 2012, the government made a commitment to grant additional funding to the victims fund. On April 23, the Minister of Justice announced an additional $7 million over five years for the victims fund.

The federal victims fund now amounts to some $11.6 million a year that goes to provincial and territorial governments, to victims support agencies and to other partners in order to provide support for services, projects and initiatives that promote access to justice and a greater awareness of the services available to the victims of crime and their families.

Under the victims fund, the following activities and projects, to name just a few, will be carried out in Canada: in Newfoundland and Labrador, it will be easier for victims to attend sentencing hearings and to present victims’ impact statements.

The courtrooms will also be adapted for children in order to help the most vulnerable victims and witnesses to crime when they take part in legal proceedings.

In New Brunswick, the parents of child victims of sexual assault will have access to better services; public legal education and information resources will be updated and widely distributed in order to help children and other vulnerable victims; and access to services for adults who were sexually assaulted in childhood will be improved.

In Saskatchewan, law enforcement personnel will receive training that will enable them to recognize the victims of hate crimes and provide them with assistance; and the province’s courtrooms will be endowed with devices making it easier for children and other vulnerable witnesses to provide evidence.

In Yukon, victims who live in rural areas will have better access to assistance providers in communities served by circuit courts.

In Alberta, access to assistance services by victims living in remote rural areas will be improved.

In Prince Edward Island, the protocol for dealing with sexual assault of children will be updated and the officers working directly with children and young victims will be given training. Solid relationships will be established with the child advocacy centre at the Izaak Walton Killam health centre in Nova Scotia in order to improve support for child victims and their families.

Public legal education and information material will be drafted and published in 18 languages in the various communities in Manitoba.

Specialized training to deal with the trauma and crime victimization that is specific to Nunavut will be developed and distributed and new ways will be sought to help the victims of crime in the community.

In Ontario, victims of crime in remote communities will have better access to a wide range of specialized services.

These are only a few examples of the excellent work being done throughout Canada to provide assistance to the victims and improve their experience with the criminal justice system.

In addition to the funding granted by the victims fund, the money from victims surcharges will also make it possible to help provinces and territories provide services to the victims under their jurisdiction. This is an excellent example of federal, provincial and territorial co-operation on issues of very great importance to all levels of government.

I would also like to draw the members' attention to the 2012 National Victims of Crime Awareness Week that was held from April 22 to 28 this year. This year's theme was "Moving Forward" and it focused on the devastating impact of crime on the lives of victims and their need to be treated with compassion and respect for their dignity.

The theme also underlined the work accomplished by the various levels of government as well as by the dedicated professionals and volunteers who provide services to the victims to help them move forward and rebuild their lives.

The federal victims fund provides funding to victims' services organizations in all provinces and territories in order to hold more than 160 important events during National Victims of Crime Awareness Week.

I hope the honourable members were able to take part in the activities that were held in their riding in support of the important work being carried out by victims' services organizations and to see first-hand the courage and resilience of victims of crime.

I urge all members in this House to support this bill, because we must help the victims of crime in every way possible in the hopes of facilitating their recovery.

Increasing Offenders' Accountability for Victims ActGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

NDP

Christine Moore NDP Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking my colleague for his speech. I would also like to emphasize that, as my colleague from Gatineau stated earlier, the NDP will support this bill at second reading so that it can go to committee because there are still a lot of unanswered questions about it. I hope that the committee's work will give us a chance to get those answers.

I would like to ask my colleague a question about the judge's discretionary power to waive the surcharge for a particular individual if the judge believes that it would cause harm to the individual and if the judge knows the individual is truly incapable of paying it. Currently, the judge can use his or her discretionary power, but this bill will eliminate that option.

The purpose of this bill is to make more money available to help victims. When a judge is forced to levy a small surcharge from a very poor person, the court will have to try to collect that money. Might it cost more than the amount of the surcharge itself to collect the surcharge that the judge had no choice but to impose? If so, this will not make more money available to victims.