A recent Supreme Court of Canada decision to eliminate mandatory victim surcharges from criminal sentences could put funding of victim services units across the province in jeopardy, says Westlock Victim Services Unit program manager Matthew White.
“This is just another blow to victims that unfortunately is taking away some of their power, in my opinion,” he said.
Each province maintains a fund of the sentencing fees that is distributed to various programs that benefit the victims of crime, including victim services units, like the one in Westlock, that advocates for victims of crime in the justice system and provides needed supports for victims throughout the justice process.
“It assures funding to make sure victims are helped, to make sure that victims’ programs have the support and the funding required,” said White. “That’s where we get our operating grant from every year, through the Victims of Crime Fund.”
On Dec. 14, the country’s top court voted 7-2 to quash Harper government legislation requiring mandatory fines be added to the sentences of convicted criminals, deeming the practice unconstitutional.
“The surcharge constitutes cruel and unusual punishment and therefore violates Section 12 of the (Charter of Rights), because its impact and effects create circumstances that are grossly disproportionate to what would otherwise be a fit sentence, outrage the standards of decency and are both abhorrent and intolerable,” reads the judgment written by Justice Sheilah Martin.
Originally put in place in 1989 as an option for judges in their sentencing, victim surcharges were made mandatory in 2013. Section 737 of the Criminal Code legislated a 30 per cent fee be added onto any financial penalty and if no such penalty is handed down, then fines of $100 and $200 were levied, depending on the severity of the charges.
The current Liberal government is trying to pass Bill C-75 which would make the fees optional, as they used to be, and at a judge’s discretion.
Proponents of the bill point out mandatory fines do not allow sentencing judges to consider mitigating factors, like financial capacity to pay; ignore the goal of rehabilitation in the justice system; and undermine Parliament’s intention to address the problem of Indigenous over-representation in prisons.
There is currently no word on a potential replacement source for the revenues and White is concerned that may lead to “critical gaps” in services.
“We’ve been assured through the provincial government that there’s not going to be much of a change. Hopefully that stays true because most of the funding in our Victims of Crime Fund comes from provincial tickets,” he said. “Our concern is it’s going to cause some critical gaps in service. If the surcharge was found to be cruel and unusual punishment, what does that mean for a provincial surcharge?”
White has also written to MP Arnold Viersen and federal justice minister Jody Wilson-Raybould on the subject, expressing his disappointment in the decision and asked several pointed questions.
“Will victims of crime and the programs that support them continue to receive funding? Will the federal government be looking at an alternate model to assist victims of crime? Will this ruling affect the collection of a surcharge on provincial offences?” the letter asks.
“Will you now work towards a federal victims of crime surcharge program? What specific actions will you take towards this goal?”
