Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking our colleague from Sudbury for encouraging us to reflect on the matter of compensation for victims of crime. We must, of course, fight against crime, which we already strive to do in various ways with various bills, but we also have a responsibility to look after victims.
Let us be clear that the Bloc Québécois is in agreement with holding drug traffickers and pimps accountable. Does that mean, however, that the approach proposed by our colleague is the right one? The member for Sudbury is a parliamentarian whom I greatly respect and appreciate, but with all due respect, I believe this is the wrong approach.
Firstly, the bill would in theory allow for a legal entity to be compensated. This is inconsistent with the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights, which states that “an individual who has suffered physical or emotional harm, property damage or economic loss as the result of the commission or alleged commission of an offence” can receive restitution. However, the bill tabled by our colleague from Sudbury provides that the beneficiary of such restitution could be a community organization, or in other words, a legal entity, which would conflict with the bill of rights.
In my humble opinion, we have to be careful on this point and prevent confusion. This could also lead to another outcome, as my colleague from Drummond pointed out a few minutes ago, an outcome that we would say is undesirable. Real victims, such as the victims of pimps, would be competing against community organizations that provide services to the victims of pimps to get restitution orders. Honestly, I do not think community organizations would spend much time fighting that sort of battle, but it would still be a real problem.
Real victims must be compensated. Community organizations should be funded according to their needs. Processes already exist for that funding. These include, for example, victim surcharges. As we know, anyone facing a conviction in recent years always has a fine and surcharge imposed. While we may often wonder what purpose surcharges serve, they are redistributed to the provinces to fund the various victim assistance services and programs. Organizations that help victims of crime are therefore funded through victim surcharges. The direct victims themselves may be entitled to restitution, and this is already provided for in the Criminal Code.
Moreover, victims can file a claim for a whole range of damages. The Civil Code already contains a compensation regime, a civil liability regime for damages suffered by victims. This applies equally to victims of criminal acts and victims of civil torts or unintentional torts. Victims can already initiate civil proceedings for suffering, emotional distress and material damage. If a community organization has suffered this type of damage because of a crime, it could sue the person responsible for the crime in civil court and obtain compensation. Similarly, the victim of a pimp can also sue the pimp, not only by filing a criminal complaint, but also by filing a civil suit to obtain compensation.
In light of that, it is evident that there are systems in place that allow for adequate compensation for all these individuals. There is already a system in place. The real issue is that there is a problem with this system, a recurring problem with federal government programs in general: underfunding.
When it comes to health care funding in Canada, which has been a recurring topic in this chamber, we know that the federal government has gradually reduced its commitment year after year. Originally, in the 1960s, the federal government was supposed to fund 50%. Today, we are fortunate if it reaches 25%.
The reduction in health care funding is reflected across many public services. We often talk about infrastructure programs, but they have slowed down, as well. We have a housing crisis, which provinces and municipalities are tackling, but the federal government appears too slow to act. Meanwhile, the situation is becoming increasingly urgent.
We talk about providing support for individuals who have fallen prey to pimps, drug traffickers, and other such criminals. Obviously, we are not insensitive to such situations, and we agree that victims should receive assistance. Nevertheless, I think we need to proceed cautiously and align our requests with current programs to ensure individuals are not left without clear avenues for support.
Right now, victims can seek help from organizations. These organizations can apply for grants, perhaps primarily through the federal victim surcharge program. Victims can also pursue restitution through the courts once a criminal is sentenced. All these individuals can still initiate civil proceedings to seek compensation for current or future harm. That strikes me as being more than sufficient.
We do agree, however, that the amounts are not sufficient. Perpetrators of these crimes are not fully held to account or made to answer for their actions. We would like to see greater accountability from them, and they should provide more compensation for their victims. There will always be an issue with debtor solvency in these cases. Is it possible to secure compensation from those responsible for these crimes? That remains to be seen, but that is another issue.
Turning to the compensation processes and the sources of compensation, I respectfully submit that the sources are there and they are working. We must avoid confusion among Canadians, as this could jeopardize fair compensation for victims.
For all these reasons, the Bloc Québécois fully supports the notion of making those who commit crimes accountable. The Bloc is fully in favour of holding hearings within an expedited timeline to secure their conviction.
I have not talked about these time limits, but that is another flaw in our justice system. The time to trial even prompted the Supreme Court to introduce time limits in the Jordan decision. We are still unable to meet these time limits. That is a major issue and it will have to be dealt with at some point
While we agree with what has been said, unfortunately, we cannot support the bill introduced by our colleague from Sudbury.