Mr. Speaker, I will be voting for this bill at second reading, because it is a bill that is worth examining in greater depth.
It is really worth examining this bill in greater depth because the basic idea seems to be a good one. The idea of doing more to help victims is a principle we can all agree on. That said, the bill as it now stands has a number of flaws, or gives rise to a number of questions. That is why I think it really calls for detailed and in-depth study in committee.
The biggest problem is perhaps that it limits judges’ power to waive the surcharge in certain cases. Unfortunately, I do not know whether the committee will be able to explore that issue thoroughly. This power is already provided in section 737. In some cases, when a judge believes it may cause undue hardship to the person or their dependants, the judge may grant an exemption to the surcharge.
There are two aspects to this problem. There is a problem that is one of principle. Once again, they are trying to stop judges from judging. A law cannot cover every specific case. That is why we have judges, and why we call them judges: because they are capable of demonstrating judgment, and in certain specific situations, of saying that it would perhaps be better to do something else. That is why we appoint the cream of our law societies and our lawyers to the bench.
Obviously, however, this government is trying, with bill after bill, to limit the powers of judges, as if this government somehow did not trust the judicial branch. So it is a fundamental problem, a problem of principle, that we are seeing in numerous cases. It is also a practical problem, because it means there are potentially people whom it would be appropriate to exempt from the surcharge, not just for them, but also for their families, their dependants.
We know the rule is that support has to be paid first and all that, but we are not always talking about support payments. We are often talking about people who live in very difficult and distressing socio-economic conditions, for whom it would present enormous problems to pay the surcharge. I will not offer a specific example. That is precisely why we have judges, to judge, and this is what they would be able to decide.
The second problem this bill raises relates to the provision that the money from the surcharge must be used by the provinces to fund services to victims of crime. Again, the basic principle seems to be a good one. I applaud the idea of helping victims of crime, but again, this idea raises a problem we could almost call philosophical.
Last week, in my riding in Montreal, Denis Blanchette was killed. I went to the vigil and to Mr. Blanchette’s funeral. Unquestionably, his close family are the primary victims. I want to take this opportunity to express my sincere condolences to them. However, there is also the entire artistic community, and the entire city of Montreal. Someone wrote on my Facebook page that one person was killed, but eight million were wounded. The victims are a very broad group. That is why we need social solidarity. But I am on a different track, one that is much more technical and specific, in this case.
The goal is to give money to victim assistance services. One of the problems is that the programs are not always at the same level in the provinces and territories. They are not uniform. How will we be able to develop a degree of synergy, or uniformity, in these services? Are they going to start telling a province that because it does not have the program they would like it to have, they are not giving it any money?
How will it work? The question may seem a little superficial, but it is particularly important in that we do not even know whether the provinces and territories have been consulted in this process. The expression that fits well here is that they are putting the cart before the horse. The first step might be to consult the provinces, to see how things can be arranged, together, and then put a system in place after that. The system should provide assurances that the money from the surcharge will truly go to victims and victims’ groups. That aspect is not very clear. An essential step has been skipped, and I hope the committee will be able to deal with that before the bill comes back to us for third reading.
There is also the issue of the lack of funding to help victims and victims' groups, which a number of my colleagues have raised today. This is one way of increasing funding, but are there others? Have the possible avenues been compared? This is the kind of thing we need to think about beforehand, rather than after the fact. There again, let us hope that the committee will do its job.
So that the committee can do its job, I will support this bill at second reading, despite all the flaws mentioned. I think it is very important to help victims. However, I cannot pass up the opportunity to say that, although it is important to help victims, it is just as important, if not more so, to prevent people from becoming victims.
This is called prevention, which requires long-term measures. But the government does not seem to understand much about long-term measures and prevention. It is prevention and education. As one of my hon. colleagues mentioned, it is also the fight against poverty, which is a major factor in the development of criminal behaviour.
It is affordable housing. When a child has an appropriate place to play or study, there is much less risk that that child will drop out or end up on the street, and the probability that the child will associate with criminal groups drops accordingly. It is health and, obviously, gun control. In fact, it is solidarity in communities, mutual support, not everyone for themselves. It is investing in people and in a healthier society.
