Bill C-37 · 41th Parliament · Stephen Harper
Increasing Offenders' Accountability for Victims Act
An Act to amend the Criminal Code
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedApril 24, 2012
- Debated in principleOct. 16, 2012
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberDec. 12, 2012
- Passed the second chamberApril 29, 2013
- Became lawJune 18, 2013
Leading supporters
Ranked by the part each played: who is responsible for the bill, who carried it, and who spoke for it most.
- Stephen HarperPrime Minister
Who carries this bill
Arrows run from the person responsible to those who answer to them on this bill. The critic leads the Senate’s scrutiny and answers to no one on it.
What it set out to do
On 24 April 2012, the Minister of Justice introduced Bill C-37, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (Increasing Offenders' Accountability for Victims Act), in the House of Commons and it was given first reading. A victim surcharge is an additional penalty imposed on convicted offenders at the time of sentencing. Bill C-37 amends the Criminal Code to change the rules concerning victim surcharges. The surcharge would be 30 percent of any fine imposed on the offender. Where no fine is imposed, the surcharge would be $100 for offences punishable by summary conviction and $200 for offences punishable by indictment. In addition, the judge would retain the discretion to impose an increased surcharge where the circumstances warrant and the offender has the ability to pay.
Summary by the Library of Parliament.
Where members stand
Votes and debate for this bill have not been read yet.
How it changed on the way
85% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (931 words introduced, 471 passed).
minor changeintent kept
The core amendments to victim surcharge amounts, enforcement rules, and the definition of sentence remained identical from introduction to royal assent. Only formal elements such as regnal years in the title and the addition of the assent date were updated in the final statute.
How precisely it is written
mostly preciseChallenging the law: ModerateDisputing a charge: Hard
The core rules use fixed dollar amounts and percentages triggered by conviction or discharge, leaving little room for argument over the surcharge itself. A few phrases and the delayed start date introduce limited flexibility.
Open to argument
“with any modifications that the circumstances re”
This phrase invites case-by-case judgment on how enforcement sections apply rather than stating exact changes.
Clear-cut
“An offender who is convicted, or discharged under section 730, of an offence under this Act or the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act shall pay a victim surcharge”
Clear mandatory trigger and defined offences produce a black-and-white obligation.
Discretion. The Governor in Council alone decides the single date when the entire Act takes effect, with no statutory criteria or deadline supplied.
Challenging the law itself. The mandatory surcharge without waiver could be attacked under s. 12 or s. 7 of the Charter as overbroad or grossly disproportionate in some cases.
Disputing a charge under it. Once a qualifying conviction exists, the fixed percentages and dollar figures leave almost no factual dispute over whether the surcharge applies or how much is owed.
Read by a language model from the royal assent text; every quoted phrase appears in the bill. A reading of the drafting, not legal advice.
Did it work?
not effective
The 2013 amendments via Bill C-37 made victim surcharges mandatory and higher to boost offender accountability and victim services funding, but a 2016 Department of Justice evaluation revealed inconsistent collection, enforcement challenges, and burdens on indigent offenders across jurisdictions. The regime was later ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 2018 and partially reversed in 2019, preventing sustained achievement of its objectives.
- The Federal Victim Surcharge: The 2013 Amendments and their Implementation in Nine Jurisdictions (Department of Justice Canada, 2016)evaluationMarked variability in collection/enforcement processes post-Bill C-37, with revenue increases in most of nine jurisdictions studied but significant issues including outdated systems, judicial workarounds, and burdens on offenders unable to pay.
- Proportion of guilty adult criminal court cases sentenced to pay a victim surcharge (Statistics Canada)studyImposition rates were high (62-93%) from 2015/16 to 2018/19 under the mandatory regime but dropped sharply (4-44%) after Bill C-75 restored judicial discretion in 2019.
Who lobbied on it
No lobbying registration naming this bill is loaded.
Stages and dates from LEGISinfo.