Bill C-238

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (restitution orders)

This enactment amends the Criminal Code to set out certain types of damages for which a restitution order may be made to certain persons who provide front-line services, including emergency and victim support services, to a community.

Criminal Code

[Jagsharan Singh Mahal, Conservative, Edmonton Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on Bill C-238, a bill that attempts to address a very real and serious issue in our country, the issue of growing crime in our communities.

Let me be clear. The intent behind this bill is understandable. Across Canada, frontline organizations are carrying an enormous burden, shelters are overwhelmed, hospitals are dealing with constant overdose cases, first responders are stretched thin and victim support organizations are under pressure like never before. These are the people who show up when everything is falling apart, and they are paying a price for crime.

The bill is attempting to respond to this reality by allowing courts to order offenders involved in human and drug trafficking to pay restitution to community organizations. On its face, this is reasonable. If crime creates costs, offenders should help pay the cost. However, as someone who practised law before coming to this House, I understand that just because something sounds good, it does not always work in practice. Unfortunately, I do not believe this bill would work in practice.

The first fundamental problem is causation. We cannot just point to a harm and say who should pay. The basic legal standard is it must be proven that a specific individual caused a specific loss. This bill would be asking the courts to do something extremely difficult: to take broad system-wide costs, like shelter demand and harm reduction services, and tie them to a single offender; to decide which dealer caused the overdose that required opioid overdose reversals like Narcan; or to decide which individual caused the need for shelter security upgrades. These are not simple questions and in many cases they cannot be answered in a way that meets required legal standards. If it cannot be proven, then this bill simply will not deliver.

The second problem is enforceability. Let us say the courts do establish causation. There is the question of whether the money can even be collected. The reality is the vast majority of offenders pertaining to this bill would not have the means to pay, with no assets, no steady incomes and likely facing significant sentences. What would happen? Courts would issue restitution that exists on paper, but not in reality, not collected, not enforced and providing no meaningful support to those community organizations. We would be left with only the illusion of accountability.

The third issue is the impact on our justice system. The courts are already under strain, dealing with delays, backlogs and increasing pressure on judges, prosecutors and defence counsel. The bill would add another layer of complexity at the sentencing stage. To determine restitution, courts would need detailed financial records, documentation of expenses, witnesses to establish those costs, arguments over whether those costs were caused by a specific offender and so on. What would this really mean? It would mean more time, more paperwork and more delay. The result would be a system that moves even slower at a time when Canadians are already losing confidence in it.

There would also be a practical burden falling on the organizations this bill is supposed to help. To access restitution, they would need to track expenses in detail, link those expenses to specific incidents, prepare documentation for court and participate in legal proceedings. That is more administration work, more time spent in courts and more sources diverted from frontline work.

Most smaller organizations will not have the capacity to do such things. If they do go ahead with it, we go back to the issue of enforceability. Will they even get any money? Are the court resources used not overwhelmingly more expensive than the damages?

Let us talk about this crime crisis briefly. It is a crisis we are dealing with right now in communities across the country, including Edmonton. In Edmonton, we are seeing the impact of crime and addiction every single day. We see rising drug use on the streets. We see increased overdoses on deadly street drugs, and we see immense pressure on shelters and emergency services.

Organized criminal activity is becoming more viable and more aggressive. Extortion is a huge issue in my riding, and I hear constantly of cases from my constituents. Small business owners are being targeted, especially through WhatsApp. They are being threatened, intimidated and told to pay or face consequences. These are people who have worked hard to build something and are being forced to live in fear. When they look at the justice system, they are not looking for symbolic restitution orders years down the line. They are asking for protection, for enforcement and for a system that actually stops the people causing the harm. This is where we need to focus, because accountability is not about new processes that look good on paper. It is about outcomes. It is about strengthening and enforcing laws.

This is where the Liberals have failed. They have failed to stop repeat offenders who are committing most of the crime. They have created an in-and-out bail system that puts criminals back on the street. They have relaxed sentencing laws, making it difficult for people to go to jail. They give violent criminals house arrest and no punishment. They have grown the addiction crisis and have focused on safe supply instead of getting people off drugs. Instead of doing the real work, they are pushing legislation that just looks good and does nothing to solve the real issues. This bill is a prime example. We all agree that communities are paying the price for crime. We all agree that frontline organizations deserve support, but good intentions are not enough. If a law cannot be proven, if it cannot be enforced, then it does not achieve its purpose.

Canadians deserve better than that. They deserve a justice system that works. They deserve policies that deliver real results. They deserve communities that are safe, not just in theory, but in reality. For those reasons, and for the reason that I am not convinced it will be viable and practical to collect money from the offenders, even though I have great respect for the intent behind this bill, I cannot support this bill.

[Alexis Deschênes, Bloc, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues for presenting their opinions on Bill C‑238. Now it is my turn to do the same on behalf of the Bloc Québécois.

The purpose of Bill C‑238 is to make restitution available for organizations, often community organizations, that provide frontline services to the community. It would allow organizations to claim damages and interest through criminal proceedings from offenders who commit crimes related to illegal drug trafficking, kidnapping and human trafficking.

The addition proposed in this bill would permit organizations, meaning incorporated entities, to obtain restitution. At present, the law regarding restitution is set out in section 730 of the Criminal Code. A number of restitution orders may be requested at sentencing.

Currently, organizations are excluded, but victims can obtain some degree of restitution through damages and interest in consideration of the harm caused. For example, restitution is available if property was destroyed during the commission of an offence. If an offender enters a home and causes damage during an armed assault or a break and enter, a restitution order may be sought and the offender would be required to pay it.

A restitution order may also be sought in the case of bodily or psychological harm to any person. For example, sexual assault is sure to leave psychological scars, and the Crown prosecutor may apply for an order. The court may also make a restitution order. This is always for damages and interest, but restitution may also cover loss of income. A victim of crime who cannot work may apply to the court for a restitution order. This also covers the threat of bodily harm.

The Criminal Code already contains provisions for ordering an offender to pay amounts to victims in cases of intimate partner violence when the situation results in the children or the mother or father having to relocate for a period of time. An order for restitution may be sought in such situations. The same applies for costs incurred as a result of identity theft. A victim who wishes to re-establish their identity must take certain steps, and the court may order the offender to pay damages. The same applies for reasonable expenses related to removing intimate images from the Internet.

That is the law as it stands. The bill before us would add provisions such that not only victims, but also community organizations that provide services, such as helping individuals with drug addiction or providing shelter, can apply to the court for a restitution order for crimes related to drug and human trafficking, as stated in the bill.

As my colleague mentioned, the intention is laudable. The member sponsoring this bill says that she wants to increase funding for community organizations. That is a laudable intention. To do so, she wants to hit drug traffickers and pimps where it hurts.

The intention is laudable, but unfortunately, the proposed approach is flawed. That is why the Bloc Québécois will vote against this bill. The approach is flawed for several reasons. First, if this measure were adopted, it would force victims to compete with community organizations. As has been mentioned, people may think that drug traffickers are extremely wealthy. Some of them are, but criminals are often poor.

In any case, if the bill is passed, there will come a time when, during sentencing in court, restitution will be sought by both victims and an organization, and the victims could lose out. To get a sense of what this could look like, let us consider the case of a woman who is a victim of human trafficking. One person is charged, and the woman we are talking about is the victim. The defendant pleads guilty. Then comes sentencing. At that point, the court will have to determine who should receive restitution. That is one issue.

One of the obstacles in the bill has to do with causality. My colleague mentioned this. Let me give an example. Let us say it is a case of human trafficking, and a community organization, such as a shelter for abused women, wants to obtain an order. It will have to demonstrate that, as a result of the offence, it incurred expenses for the person's services, for example, or to provide shelter. There is a challenge, because causality will not be easy to prove in every case. It is also important to always remember that most people who are convicted do not have significant financial resources. How effective would this measure actually be?

Another rather significant obstacle is the red tape involved in all this. I think that everyone here must visit community organizations in their ridings from time to time. In my riding, some community organizations recently said that they are stretched thin. They are few in number, they work very hard and they perform miracles. If they wanted to go ahead and use this provision, they need to be aware of the criminal remedies available to them. There is a lot of that in court. A number of charges are dealt with in court. Community organizations should monitor what is happening in the criminal court and make sure they are there at the time of sentencing. Take, for example, an organization that offers addiction treatment. First, they would need to know that there is a court hearing going on that day, and then they would have to show that it was the methamphetamine that was sold by this particular drug dealer that caused the overdose of this specific victim who turned to the organization's services on a specific date. This is not necessarily an easy process for organizations that are already doing outstanding work with limited resources.

The other argument—and I believe this is the decisive one—is that measures already exist to fund community organizations. One specific measure already exists in the Criminal Code and is known as the victim surcharge. Under section 737 of the Criminal Code, the court may impose an additional fine, a victim surcharge, once a person is convicted. The Supreme Court has ruled on this and set parameters, but it used to apply in all cases. Now it is at the discretion of the judge, who may or may not order it. There are certain fixed fine amounts, but it is a mechanism that exists and serves much the same purpose: to take money out of criminals' pockets and use it for good. In Quebec, this money is sent to a fund to help victims of crime, the Fonds affecté à l'aide aux personnes victimes d'infractions criminelles. According to the fund's activity report, only $3.2 million was collected in victim surcharges across the whole of Quebec in 2024–25, so we can see that this is not a panacea and that, in fact, criminals often have limited means. Still, it is better than nothing.

Another existing mechanism involves funds derived from the proceeds of crime. Our justice system already has the means, when conducting criminal investigations and bringing charges, to seize the proceeds of crime and transfer them to the state so they can be used for good. This is already the case in Quebec. CAVAC, the crime victims' assistance centre, is already funded with this money. Several other organizations, including Plaidoyer Victimes, SOS Violence Conjugale, and Éducaloi, are also funded this way.

There are many other options available. If the government truly wants to increase funding, I simply suggest that it increase transfers to the provinces so that we can pass the funds on to our community organizations.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the law-abiding Canadians in the compassionate riding of Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke and speak to Bill C-238. This private member's bill proposes to allow community organizations to seek restitution for drug crimes or human trafficking crimes. Making criminals pay for the consequences of their crimes has an undeniably popular appeal.

The member for Sudbury's intentions with the bill may be honourable, but they are certainly misguided. It is an overused cliché to say that all good intentions lead to the fiery pits of damnation. Sometimes good intentions just lead to an endless bureaucratic maze. At other times those good intentions lead nowhere at all. Those two options are juxtaposed in the bill. Either it would never be used because the legal hurdles are too high, or it would be used but the accumulated costs would outweigh the benefits. My colleagues with actual lived experience in courtrooms explained how the wording of the bill makes it unlikely the bill would be of any use.

First, the expenses incurred would have to be directly linked to the criminal offence. A convicted drug trafficker cannot be ordered to pay for all overdose costs. The organization would need to show that the specific individual who overdosed purchased a specific dose from a specific trafficker. Second, the organization would have to prove the marginal cost to treat that overdose. Most organizations get naloxone kits from the provinces for free. Given the nature of the work that many of these organizations do, it just might be impossible to disentangle the routine expenses from the marginal expenses resulting from a criminal offence.

The bill lists the types of expenses an organization could claim. Not included on the list is the cost of accountants to ascertain the eligible expenses. One example of an expense perfectly highlights the problem with the bill: “expenses to implement or strengthen security measures, including expenses for security services and equipment”. This expense makes no sense, especially since the bill would limit restitution to cases of drug trafficking and human smuggling.

We could follow the lead of the Supreme Court and create a hypothetical case to highlight the absurdity, or we could look at the tragic events surrounding the death of Karolina Huebner-Makurat, a 44-year-old mother of two who was killed by a stray bullet on July 7, 2023, while walking near the South Riverdale Community Health Centre in Toronto. The shooting occurred during a fight between drug dealers outside the supervised consumption site located within the health centre. An employee of the health centre aided one of the drug dealers in fleeing the police.

If this bill had been law, and if the Crown had brought additional trafficking charges against the killers, the health centre would have been allowed to seek restitution for any strengthened security measures. Any security measures taken after the fact, such as installing a security camera, cannot be attributed to a specific crime. The crime has already happened. The camera cannot undo the crime. It may have been the impetus, but it is not the direct cause. The camera may reduce the likelihood of another crime, but that means it cannot reasonably be assigned to the initial crime.

The criminal act would also have to be so unusual or so impactful that it resulted in a permanent degradation of the security environment. While the murder of Karolina would certainly qualify as an example, murder is not on the list of crimes covered by the bill.

The South Riverdale Community Health Centre staff were well aware that drug trafficking was occurring outside. The organization had a long history of ignoring community concerns about the criminal activity centred around a safe consumption site. The organization acted as a magnet for traffickers. An employee of the organization fell in love with a drug trafficker and helped him hide from the police.

Measures taken after the fact are not driven by the last criminal acts but are intended to avoid liability for the consequences of any subsequent criminal acts. Proving that a specific criminal act resulted in a specific marginal expense to an organization is so onerous that it likely would never be pursued. If this bill were passed and never used, that would be the best case scenario. If it were used, it could have only one result: It would lengthen the sentencing hearings and further tie up scarce resources in the courts. Defence attorneys would have economists and accountants on speed-dial to contest every expense.

While drug traffickers are having their charges dropped because the cases take too long, the worst thing we could do is add to the delays by passing ill-considered laws. I doubt it is the intention of the member for Sudbury to add further delays to the criminal justice system, but that would be the impact.

At best, this bill is useless. At worst, it will help criminals get off scot-free.

As I said in the beginning, the motivations seem to be coming from a good place. The member for Sudbury wants to make criminals pay for the harms they cause. I think that is something all Canadians can get behind. There should be some way to connect the harm caused to an organization by the person or people causing the harm.

For example, when the government decided it would copy the playbook used by opioid makers and flooded our streets with narcotics, it caused harm. Giving out free hydromorphone like candy had the predictable result of creating new drug addicts. This bill would seek to help community organizations impacted by the surge in drug addiction, yet it is the government's harm production policy that is at the root of many of the problems those same organizations are experiencing.

Since crime rates peaked in the 1970s, they have been on a steady, 50-year decline. The year that mandatory minimums for gun possession were repealed was the last year we saw a decline in crime. The Liberal government saw those same statistics and proceeded to knowingly repeal mandatory minimum sentences for the very crimes this bill would cover. Again, those crimes are drug trafficking and human trafficking. We know the Liberal government is quite literally trafficking in hydromorphone.

The damage the Liberals have done to our immigration and asylum system was also a boon to human traffickers. Ending the visa requirement for Mexico was essentially a two-for-one deal. The cartels would fill up their drug mules, fly them to Canada, unload the drugs and then smuggle the people across the U.S. border. After Justin's “all are welcome to Canada” tweet, the RCMP had to set up welcome centres for all humans smuggled across the border at Roxham Road.

The additional costs being borne by community organizations on the front lines are directly tied to 11 long years of Liberal policies. This bill is like trying to put a band-aid on a machete wound, and the Liberals are the ones wielding the weapon.

I do not blame the member for Sudbury for bringing forward this kind of band-aid bill. She is following the Prime Minister's lead.

The Major Projects Office is another band-aid for the Liberal impact assessment machete.

The Liberals prefer band-aids over doing the hard work and announcements over results. They prefer these types of performative bills. Making criminals pay has popular appeal, but this bill is the wrong approach.

As my colleagues have pointed out, Canada already has mechanisms for victims of crime to seek restitution. If a criminal burns down a safe supply clinic, the Crown attorney can seek restitution for the organization, yet only 1.6% of criminal cases involve a restitution order. Of those, few are ever successfully collected.

There is a reason why drug dealers are more likely to live in their parents' basements: Crime does not pay. Drug pushers and human smugglers belong in jail. While the Liberals prefer that dealers and modern slave runners serve their sentences from home, they still cannot work.

This bill would try to squeeze water from a rock. It is clear that the member for Sudbury has heard from many of the same types of community organizations that I hear from in Renfrew County. They are under increasing financial pressure. Homeless shelters are filled with international students who now claim to be refugees, treatment centres are overrun, our food banks are overwhelmed and businesses are forced to close public washrooms due to rampant drug use.

It was not like this before the Liberals were in power. This is the inevitable and predictable result of Liberal bad policies, including free opioids and open borders with no security checks. The Liberals have spent the cupboard bare, and now they are firing public servants while handing billions to Brookfield.

Canadians and the community organizations they support are being squeezed by a Liberal vice of bad policies and out-of-control spending. Now all they can come up with is this policy that would shake spare change loose from drug dealers.

If the member really cared about the community, she would urge her caucus to cancel the Brookfield clean electricity investment tax credit and put the money toward drug addiction treatment.

Canadians deserve better than Liberal band-aids because they do not stick.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

That concludes debate.

The hon. member for Sudbury has five minutes for her right of reply.

[Viviane LaPointe, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking my colleagues from all parties who have spoken to Bill C-238. What we have heard during debate across all party lines is something important. There is broad agreement on the problem. Members spoke about the toll of addiction, trafficking and exploitation in their communities. They spoke about first responders, outreach workers and volunteers stretched to the limits. They spoke about the real and growing pressure on the very people who step in when others cannot. On that, we all agree. Where we differ is on the solution.

Some have suggested that the bill would add process without value, that it would create administrative burden or that it offers a promise that cannot be delivered. I would like to address those concerns this evening directly.

First, the bill would not create a new system. Restitution already exists in the Criminal Code. Judges already have the discretion to order it. Bill C-238 would clarify that restitution can include community organizations when they can demonstrate measurable costs tied to the offence. This is not duplication, but direction. It reflects what we already know, which is that harm from these crimes does not stop with one individual; it ripples outwards, into shelters, emergency rooms and counselling services, the very organizations that hold communities together.

Second, on the question of administrative burden, we have heard the concern that organizations would be required to track and document costs in ways they cannot manage, but the organizations themselves are telling us something very different. I have met with frontline workers who already track detailed data every day for funding and for reporting. They know exactly what it costs to respond to an overdose. They know what it costs to keep a shelter open overnight. They know what it costs to support a survivor of trafficking. These are not abstract numbers. These are real and documented costs. The bill would not ask them to create something new. It would give legal recognition to what already exists.

Third, there have been concerns about enforceability and that restitution orders may not always be collected. That is true today, and it is also true, unfortunately, for individual victims as well, but we do not abandon restitution because it is imperfect. We improve it because accountability matters, and even when restitution is partial, it is meaningful. It tells victims and those who support them that the justice system recognizes their loss. It tells offenders that the harm they caused has consequences beyond their sentence. This is not symbolic. It is restorative.

Finally, there has been concern that the bill could somehow take away from individual victims. Let me be clear. It would not. Individual victims remain the priority. Judges retain full discretion. The bill would simply add an additional pathway, not a competing one.

At its core, the bill is about something very simple. It is about fairness. Right now, community organizations absorb the cost of crime every single day, with limited resources and little recognition within the justice system. At the same time, those who profit from that harm are not being held accountable in a way that reflects the full scope of the damage they have caused. The bill would close that gap.

Police respond to the same overdose calls night after night. Outreach workers are stretched to the breaking point. Organizations have said clearly they are carrying these costs and the system does not see them. This is the reality that the bill responds to. It would not add burden, but it would recognize reality. It would not create bureaucracy, but it would enable accountability. It would not replace existing tools, but it would make them work better. Bill C-238 would ensure that, when harm is proven, repair can follow.

We all agree that these crimes have devastating impacts. We all agree that frontline organizations are under strain. The bill is an opportunity to act on that shared understanding, to give our courts a clearer tool, to support the people doing the work and to ensure that justice reflects the full reality of the harm. I ask colleagues to allow the bill to go to committee so we can hear directly from victims, survivors, police and frontline organizations. Rather than deciding for them, here in the House, what works for them, we must ensure their voices are part of this process.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

The question is on the motion.

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Viviane LaPointe, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we would like to request a recorded vote on this bill.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, April 22, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

The House resumed from Thursday, April 16, consideration of the motion that Bill C-238, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (restitution orders), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-238, under Private Members' Business.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #101

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)