Justice Committee on June 10th, 2026

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Good afternoon, everybody. I'd like to call this meeting to order.

Before we start the formal part of the meeting, I just want to advise the committee.

I became chair of this committee in late November, as you all recall, when Minister Miller had to relinquish this seat when he was reappointed to cabinet. I was asked to take on this role on an interim basis. I have a different interpretation of interim, apparently, than the people who asked me, but one thing led to another. I've been here for six months now, but I'm stepping down as chair, effective immediately.

I'm going to turn it over to the clerk in a moment so we can proceed to the election of a new chair, but I just want to say thank you to all of the members of the committee. We've had some interesting discussions and we've had some long discussions, but I can honestly say I've enjoyed almost every single minute. I enjoy working with every single one of you. Although we all share differences at times, it's been a highly functional committee. I just want to say thank you to everybody here, and I appreciate it.

I'm not going anywhere. I'll be sitting over there instead of sitting here. Don't read anything into it.

No, I'll be sitting over there, Andrew. Don't worry.

I just want to say thank you, and I thought, in fairness to Ms. Lapointe, who's here today—we're going to start her bill—we'd do that at the outset, proceed to the election of a chair and then we can jump right in.

The last thing I would like to say is I want to say a huge thanks to the people who sit to my left and to my right, because nobody can sit in this chair and do the job at all without their help and the help of all of the other people in the room.

Thank you very much.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear!

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Chair, may I?

I'm sorry, I don't want to take more time than I have to. I just wanted to say that I've never challenged your decision, but I'm almost on the edge of my chair wanting to do that. I'll say just a few words. I think I speak on behalf of all members of this committee to say thank you. You've done an outstanding job steering this committee and we very much appreciated your chairmanship.

Thank you, again.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you. I appreciate it.

We'll go over to you, Mr. Fortin.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Chair, if I may, I would like to echo the sentiments of our colleague, Ms. Lattanzio. I don't always agree with your decisions. We have had a number of disagreements, but you have always presided with authority and the utmost respect. I have greatly appreciated the respect evident in your decisions on every occasion. I would like to thank you for these six months as chair. Again, this does not mean we agree on every issue, but I have really appreciated the way you have presided, and I thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you, Mr. Fortin.

I'm leaving the chair now.

Thank you very much. We want to get to Ms. Lapointe, so that's my final ruling as I'm moving over there.

[The Clerk of the Committee, Jean-François Lafleur]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the kind words.

I'm requested to see a quorum. Obviously, I see one.

Pursuant to Standing Order 106(3), as the clerk of the committee, I will preside over the election of the new chair.

I must inform members that the clerk of the committee can only receive motions for the election of the new chair. I must inform the committee that I cannot receive other types of motions, cannot entertain points of order nor participate in debate, of course.

We can now proceed with the election of the chair. Pursuant to Standing Order 106(2), the chair shall be a member of the government party.

I'm now ready to receive motions for the chair.

Mr. Maloney.

[James Maloney, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

I would like to nominate, as the new chair, member of Parliament Iqra Khalid.

[The Clerk]

Thank you.

Are there any other nominations?

Seeing none, I would declare Madam Khalid chair of the committee.

Welcome.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear!

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Good afternoon, everyone.

First off, I will say thank you so much, MP James Maloney, for your phenomenal job as justice chair. You have shepherded us through a lot of important legislation and through really important studies. We appreciate the work you have done.

I have very big shoes to fill, and I really appreciate the work you've done.

Can we please acknowledge him and recognize the amazing work that he has done?

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear!

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

I'm very humbled to be in this position now.

I would like to go to Madam Viviane Lapointe for her opening remarks on this bill.

Madam Lapointe, you have five minutes. Please go ahead.

[Viviane LaPointe, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair, and congratulations.

Thank you to the members of the committee for the opportunity to speak to Bill C-238.

I introduced this bill because of the conversations I've had: conversations with people on the front lines of the opioid crisis, human trafficking, addiction, homelessness and community safety.

In Sudbury, as in many regions in Canada, we have seen the tragic impact drug and human trafficking can have on individuals, families and entire communities.

We've lost far too many people to addiction. We've seen vulnerable people exploited and victimized. We've seen families struggling to find help for loved ones.

We've seen frontline organizations stepping up every day to support these people who are in crisis, often with limited resources and, we know, with growing demand.

Across my community, I've met with shelters, recovery organizations, victim services, outreach workers, police and municipal leaders. The message I hear is remarkably consistent. Communities are carrying enormous costs associated with these crimes, and many of those costs are being absorbed by organizations that, as we know, are already stretched thin.

When a drug trafficking network operates in a community, or when someone is exploited through human trafficking, the harm doesn't end when a police investigation is complete or when charges are laid. Victims need support. Families need support. People struggling with addiction need support. Communities need support.

Very often, it is the local organizations that step in to provide those services.

These local organizations respond to the needs of residents, intervene in emergencies and help people rebuild their lives. They do so because they feel deep ties to their community. However, there is a real cost to this work.

Bill C-238 is about recognizing that reality. The bill proposes a targeted amendment to the Criminal Code that would allow courts in certain cases involving drug trafficking and human trafficking offences to consider restitution for eligible community organizations that can demonstrate measurable costs resulting from those crimes.

Importantly, this bill does not create a mandatory penalty. It does not replace restitution for individual victims. It does not remove judicial discretion. Instead, it provides courts with an additional tool they may choose to use when the facts or a case support it. The bill provides clarity and certainty and, in doing so, it addresses a gap in the current framework, where courts have not always had clear legislative direction regarding restitution for organizations that incur costs responding to the impacts of these crimes.

At its heart, this bill is about accountability. When serious criminal activity causes harm, there are costs. Some are borne by victims and their families, some are borne by municipalities and some are borne by the organizations that step in to help pick up the pieces.

I think our courts should be able to take such costs into consideration when they can be verified and supported by evidence.

This is not a silver bullet for the opioid crisis. It is not a complete solution to human trafficking. Those challenges require action on many fronts, but it is a practical step that recognizes the work being done every day by organizations that support victims, strengthen communities and help people recover from the impacts of crime. Let's all be mindful that acknowledging the harm done to communities and providing reparations for such harms are recognized objectives of sentencing under the Criminal Code.

I want to thank the many organizations, community leaders, police services and frontline workers who shared their experiences and helped shape my understanding of this issue.

I look forward to your questions and to working with members of this committee as you undertake your study of the bill.

Thank you.

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Yes, Mr. Lawton, go ahead.

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Madam Chair, there have been discussions among the parties and, just given the hard stop we have, I think that, if you seek it, you'll find unanimous consent to allow the officials to appear alongside the bill's sponsor and to take questions for the remaining hour.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Thank you. I appreciate that. I was just discussing that with our clerk.

I will ask the officials to please come forward and join us at the table. We will start our questions as soon as they arrive.

We have Madam Joanna Wells, senior counsel and team lead, criminal law policy section.

We also have Aleksander Godlewski, counsel, criminal law policy section.

Thank you very much for joining us.

We'll go right into questions, as we know that the time is short and we want to make sure that everybody has the opportunity to get their questions in.

We'll start with Mr. Lawton for six minutes. Please go ahead, sir.

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Madam Lapointe, for being here, and congratulations. I'm a new member of Parliament, but I understand that getting a private member's bill even to this stage is something that is quite an accomplishment.

I don't doubt your intentions. Over the last 10 years, and you and I would probably disagree on causes, but I think we've seen rampant criminality, and communities are paying the price for this.

At the same time, I also am very mindful of policies and proposals that I fear will give false hope to communities. We know that 2% of cases involve restitution, and, of those, just one-quarter of restitution orders are actually paid. How is your bill going to actually deliver what you're effectively trying to get it to deliver?

[Viviane LaPointe, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

As we know, restitution orders exist in our judicial system today. Across all of those like that, the bill does not guarantee payment. What it does, though, is give courts an option when there are measurable costs that can be verifiable. It provides judges, at that point in time, when they're about to give restitution orders, an ability to recognize communities as being included in restitution.

When I spoke to some legal advisers, they told me that judges currently have the ability to give restitution to communities. It exists, but there's very little to no definition of what comprises a community, which is why judges are reluctant to make those restitution orders to communities.

They also aren't certain about what would be appropriate costs to award. Again, this bill serves to provide some of those definitions to judges, to offer them that tool.

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Community organizations do valuable work on the front lines, but they are not, themselves, the victims of crime. If you want to go the restitution route, is there not a risk that, by trying to ensure restitution orders are giving money to organizations, you're diverting from victims, the people directly affected by crime?

[Viviane LaPointe, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

That concern was raised when we were debating the bill in the House. The intention of this bill is by no means to take away restitution from victims. The victims need to be considered first and foremost.

In hearing the concerns raised on the floor in the chamber, I'll be bringing forward amendments to the bill that make that even clearer in the drafted bill that I have. I'll be bringing those amendments to the clerk because I think that is extremely important. This isn't meant to compete but, rather, to create another pathway for a judge, not “instead of” but “also”. That is the intent of this bill.

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

If you have a finite amount of money that, let's say, could be extracted, which, again, I think the stats show is quite difficult, who gets the first piece of that pie, the victim or the organization?

[Viviane LaPointe, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

It will be up to a judge to determine that. As we know, judges weigh evidence and causality in a courtroom. That judicial decision-making remains with the judge, certainly, and that does not change. This bill does not change that.

I have to tell you that, in speaking with the victims of human trafficking, they talked about how much they rely on the services they receive in the community. They have said they support the idea that victims as well as the community organizations would both be able to receive restitution.

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

In looking at the list you've enumerated of the type of organizations that you believe should be eligible for this funding, under proposed subparagraph 738(1)(f)(ii), you have:

expenses to provide harm reduction programs, including overdose and infectious disease prevention programs,

When you say harm reduction, are you including safe supply?

[Viviane LaPointe, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

In the consultations that I had with service providers and frontline providers, they talked a lot about how they have to respond to overdoses right there, so the ability to respond to those overdoses was the intent of that wording.

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

The reason I ask is that safe supply has been an unmitigated disaster. We have seen provinces like British Columbia and Ontario that previously wanted to dabble in that see the carnage of it. It's caused more overdoses and more criminality.

From what you're saying, if you're purely focused on overdose and infectious disease prevention, would you support an amendment to ensure that safe supply programs are excluded from this?

[Viviane LaPointe, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

I am here to defend my bill, but I'm defending my bill with my ears very much open. I would welcome suggested amendments on what we could include in terms of admissible expenses.

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

I'm just asking, is your intention to fund safe supply programs or not? If your intention is not, that's a natural amendment if that's not keeping with the spirit of what you're trying to do in that section.

[Viviane LaPointe, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

I'm not an expert in the field of mental health and addictions. I'm not here to argue on the merits of a safe supply or not. I'm simply here to talk about the community organizations and the services they provide. They are sometimes provided by our own hospital and health care systems and people doing social work.

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

I think it's fair to say that you don't think we should be funding things that are aggravating the problems we're trying to solve. Is that correct?

[Viviane LaPointe, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Frontline organizations and first responders providing those services to the victims of these crimes deserve to be recognized within our judicial system. Many of them have also told me that they're invisible. Right now, they are not seen in our judicial system. This bill provides them with an ability to be measured and considered in terms of the impact of these crimes on the community.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Thank you very much.

We're going to move on to Mr. Housefather for six minutes.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Thank you very much, Madam Lapointe, for being here today. Congratulations on making it this far in the process of a private member's bill. It's a real achievement.

You briefly elaborated about talking to many organizations, but what in particular inspired you to come forward with this bill?

[Viviane LaPointe, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

We've all seen the devastating impacts that the opioid crisis has had on our communities, on our downtowns and certainly after COVID. We've seen how the victims of these crimes have been impacted, as well as our municipalities that are struggling with the effects of this. We see our rates of homelessness. We see mental health and addictions at all-time highs. We continue to see opioid-related deaths.

I can tell you that in my community of Sudbury, we had the highest per capita numbers of opioid-related deaths. Northern Ontario has been really impacted by this. We have a lack of infrastructure resources that you would see in other regions.

In seeing those devastating impacts, knowing how these organizations are still stepping in every day and our first responders meeting the call, I felt this was a really important time, as well as a point, in terms of creating this opportunity for these first responders. It's important for criminals to be held accountable for the harm created by their crimes and the impact on victims and communities.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Are there any specific organizations in your riding of Sudbury that you want to call out for their good work and say that you appreciate how they inspired you to come forward with the bill?

[Viviane LaPointe, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

There are many organizations that offer such important services. The two that I'll highlight are The Go-Give Project, which provides support services to those who are unhoused and suffering with addictions, as well as the Angels of Hope, which provides services to victims of human trafficking. They appeared on CBC with me, on the radio. We talked about that notion of how there is restitution, but there's also the idea that all of these community organizations are invisible in our judicial system. They are not seen, yet the impacts of those crimes and the harm they cause play such a large role. We talked about how this bill is important and supported by them.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

On the comment made previously by Mr. Lawton, if we were to put forward an amendment to clarify that direct victims would be preferred over the organizations for the restitution funding, how would you react to that?

[Viviane LaPointe, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

I would very much be in favour of that, because this bill is by no means meant to replace the victims or minimize the harm the victims have felt and suffered through as a result of these crimes.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

If we were to put forward an amendment that might expand the scope of the bill to reference other victims, for example, going beyond trafficking and drug offences and adding sexual violence or intimate partner violence, would you be supportive of that?

[Viviane LaPointe, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

I absolutely would be.

When I tabled this bill, I kept it focused on human trafficking and drug trafficking because the impacts of those crimes are seen so readily in communities, but I always saw it as a first step, not the final step. The inclusion of intimate partner violence and other crimes of that nature would be very appropriate. We know service organizations offer very important services to the victims of those crimes as well.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Following Bill C-16, that would be a correct step. The committee just finished with that.

Madam Chair, am I done?

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

You have 30 more seconds, if you'd like them.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you very much for being here.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Thank you very much.

Moving on, we have Monsieur Fortin for six minutes.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to start by congratulating you on your election as chair. I have no doubt our meetings will go well and that you will exercise your role wisely and respectfully. For that, I thank you.

Ms. Lapointe, thank you for introducing this bill. Indeed, I must say that your concerns about supporting community organizations that help victims is something we in the Bloc Québécois truly share. As you know, there are many organizations in Quebec that support victims throughout the process after a complaint has been filed and the legal proceedings the victims must endure, and god knows these organizations need funding. We fully agree. We have repeatedly asked the government to transfer funds to the provinces to help them meet the needs of organizations.

We share your goal. We may disagree on the means to achieve it, but we will come back to that. If I may, I will put my questions to the department's counsel.

Ms. Wells and Mr. Godlewski, you will figure out who can respond, but I would like you to tell me how to prove these damages if a complaint is filed.

[Aleksander Godlewski, Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice]

Thank you for the question, Mr. Fortin.

The restitution provisions in the code are clear. Expenses have to be readily ascertainable and they have to be directly linked to the offence. Courts are able to hear evidence at sentencing hearings. This is the part of the process that we are talking about here.

There is a capacity for the courts to hear evidence to prove those expenses. However, the intent of the restitution provisions is really not that they should be complicated to prove, but that they have to be readily ascertainable and easy for the court to determine. What that will look like will depend on the specific expense, but they're intended to be very straightforward.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Since we know this is essentially a claim for damages and interest, it's somewhat like a civil claim. I am trying to imagine the situation.

An organization says, for example, that a case with a defendant cost $15,000 and seeks restitution in that amount. The defendant will no doubt argue that $15,000 is impossible, that it's more like $5,000 or something like that. Naturally, a debate on the amount of damages and the causal link is to be expected.

We know that, in civil law, fault, damages and the link between the two must be proven. Once a judgment has been rendered, it would be hard to imagine that the issue of fault could be contested. However, in terms of the damages and the link between damages and fault, I anticipate legal challenges could be filed.

Did you assess the time it might take to debate this issue?

[Aleksander Godlewski]

On the last part of your question and the amount of time, it can be very fact-specific to the offence that's before the court. We haven't conducted that kind of assessment.

One thing I would say, because you raise a good point with respect to the realm of civil courts, is that the jurisprudence, the case law, is very clear that restitution is not intended to displace civil remedies. If there are very complex questions about the amount of damages or the responsibility of the parties, then it may be an indication that it's not in the realm of restitution.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

At this point, the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights already provides for compensation for victims. Is that correct or am I mistaken?

[Aleksander Godlewski]

I'm sorry, but I think I missed part of the interpretation. I think I heard it, but it's just hard—

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

I don't mean to be rude by cutting you off, but time is running out. The question was, doesn't the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights already provide for compensation for similar cases?

[Aleksander Godlewski]

Both the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights and the Criminal Code outline the right of victims to put forward a request for restitution. Yes.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Under the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights, the definition of “victim” is “an individual who has suffered”, so it seems to me to exclude an organization. Do I have that right?

[Aleksander Godlewski]

You're correct in terms of the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights, but the Criminal Code uses different language in section 738.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

That being the case, in your view, should the charter be amended such that the definition of “victim” includes not only an individual, but also, say, a community organization or a corporation?

[Aleksander Godlewski]

It's a good question. I don't know the answer. I don't know if my colleague can speak to that.

The restitution orders under section 738 can be about victims, but they can also be about others, so it's possible that there could be differences between the two statutes. I don't know if my colleague has anything to add.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Thank you.

That concludes your time, Monsieur Fortin.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair. I respect your decision, but I would ask that, in the future, you take into consideration the fact that interpretation problems may cause me to lose precious seconds.

I understand, and that's fine for now, but I just wanted to make you aware that time spent on interpretation means less time for the witnesses to answer my questions. Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Thank you for that.

I would welcome the witnesses, if they have a response they'd like to add to the question Monsieur Fortin posed, to please send it to us in writing. We would like to deliberate on that as well.

Thank you very much.

Moving on to our second round, we have Mr. Baber for five minutes.

Please go ahead.

[Roman Baber, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Thank you.

Thank you very much for your attendance, MP Lapointe.

Looking at the bill, you proposed the payment of “expenses to provide harm reduction programs, including overdose and infectious disease prevention programs”. To confirm, does that include safe injection sites or not?

[Viviane LaPointe, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Again, I am here to talk about the goal of the bill, which is to give shape to communities and community organizations that provide supports to the victims of these crimes. I am not here to bear opinions on what services are deemed to be effective.

I am not a health care expert. This list of services has been developed by people who are in the field—first responders—and provide services to those victims of crime directly, so they reflect the consultations I've had.

[Roman Baber, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

I understand that you're not opining on the quality of such services, but your bill explicitly provides for the restitution of expenses “to provide harm reduction programs”, and that includes drug injection sites.

The challenge I have is that we had testimony from witnesses, in the very chair you're sitting in right now, from the Toronto Police Association, who said very clearly that drug injection sites increase local crime and neighbourhood crime. Would you agree with that or not?

[Viviane LaPointe, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Again, I cannot comment on what a witness has said before this committee. I can tell you that the list of services provided in the bill is there as a result of the consultations I've had with people who provide these services directly to the victims of these crimes.

I am not an expert in the fields of health care, social services or addictions—

[Roman Baber, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

If the institutions—

[Viviane LaPointe, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

—but I respect the consultations and the input they've had in the drafting of this bill.

[Roman Baber, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

In your view, if a local institution has the effect of manifesting crime, attracting dealers, attracting gangs, causing violence, diverting supply, inviting traffickers and inviting underage persons to traffic or to solicit narcotics, should such an institution be made a beneficiary of such a restitution order, as you propose in your bill?

It's a simple question.

[Viviane LaPointe, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Again, I will tell you that the list of eligible expenses to be considered by a judge.... That judicial decision-making rests with a judge. This bill does not in any way try to remove the decisions that a judge is empowered to make at that point in time, when charges are laid and restitution orders are made.

I respect that judicial process, just like I respect the consultations I received from frontline providers.

[Roman Baber, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

You may remember a woman named Karolina Huebner-Makurat, a 44-year-old mother of two who was hit by a stray bullet outside of the South Riverdale Community Health Centre on Queen Street East near Carlaw Avenue on July 7, 2023. It's a case that shook the city of Toronto and the entire province of Ontario. I find it very objectionable that, seemingly, as a result of this bill, which I'm sure is well intentioned, the South Riverdale Community Health Centre, which attracted the very violence that resulted in the loss of this mother of two, could be made a beneficiary of such a restitution order.

Looking at proposed subparagraph 738(1)(f)(i) in the main section of your bill, you're also talking about “expenses to provide emergency shelter”. We all agree that there is a homelessness catastrophe after 11 years of Liberal governments in our country. However, I'd like to point you to the fact that Toronto city shelters are now a standard operating procedure.

Handing out needles and drug accessories, in very many instances, actually perpetuates and contributes to crime within the community. Is it your view that upon the opening of what we refer to as a new drug den within a residential area, such an institution that hands out needles should be eligible for a restitution order? That's what proposed subparagraph 738(1)(f)(i) says in your bill.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Give a very brief answer, if that's okay. Thank you.

[Viviane LaPointe, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Through you, Chair, I will simply say that the advocacy you were making today is certainly echoed in my bill. We want to protect victims of these crimes, both drug trafficking and human trafficking crimes. You've listed the impacts that they've had. I can tell you that the communities in northern Ontario have also been very much impacted by the crimes of human and drug trafficking.

This bill is meant to bring reparation to the victims as well as their families and to the organizations that provide vital supports to those victims of the crime.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Thank you very much.

We will move to Ms. Gladu for five minutes.

Please go ahead.

[Marilyn Gladu, Liberal, Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong, ON]

Thank you so much, Chair.

Thank you, MP Lapointe, for being here. Congratulations on getting to this stage with your private member’s bill.

I understand what you're outlining in your bill, but I have a couple of practical questions.

If the judge is the person who is going to assign a reparation to be made to an organization, how do they know which organizations would benefit? Is it something that the prosecutors will suggest? How would they become aware of that?

[Viviane LaPointe, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

A judge would listen and weigh evidence in a case, just like they do now. Restitution orders exist within the Criminal Code. They would make those decisions largely based on the evidence that is produced.

It is very important that in terms of the organizations the eligible costs would need to be very much verified. They would need to be credible and related to the crime itself.

This bill is very much in keeping with the restitution process that already exists within the Criminal Code.

[Marilyn Gladu, Liberal, Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong, ON]

Very good.

It would be the responsibility of the lawyers to gather the cost information and probably the prosecution, I would think.

There was some information shared earlier about a very low percentage—I think 2% was the number—of restitution orders that are actually made. It makes me wonder what is needed to make this a tool that is used more often. Is it training for the lawyers? Is it training for the judges? Could you comment on that?

[Viviane LaPointe, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

While judges already have the ability to provide restitution to communities, they rarely do. That is because communities are not well defined within the Criminal Code. There's also what would be an appropriate cost that could be allocated in a restitution. There's a real lack of definition and guidelines for a judge to use, which is why they often won't.

What this bill attempts to do is provide those definitions within the Criminal Code in that section specifically so that it can equip a judge with those tools should a case come forward where it would be deemed appropriate to order restitutions to an organization providing services to victims of those crimes.

[Marilyn Gladu, Liberal, Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong, ON]

Thank you.

We're doing a study at the status of women committee. We've heard unbelievable testimony about the number of women being turned away from shelters and the number of women being human trafficked. We heard testimony about how it's rampant everywhere, but especially in the north.

You did give a shout-out to a couple of organizations in your riding. I wonder if there are others that are involved in the shelter victim services that might benefit from this bill.

[Viviane LaPointe, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Absolutely. There are so many who provide such important services, our hospitals, our emergency departments, our paramedics, as well as our women and youth shelters. They do so on very limited resources. That is something I've heard over and over again, their ability to continue to provide these services as demands increase, which is very unfortunate. They are extremely stressed in terms of the resource allocation that they have.

They need to resubmit for grant funding. This is another avenue for a funding opportunity for them. It's not meant to replace the responsibilities we have as federal, provincial and municipal governments to support these organizations, but it does allow another pathway for these services.

[Marilyn Gladu, Liberal, Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong, ON]

Thank you.

Practically speaking in terms of the funds, the court will collect the funds that are ordered and they're the ones that will distribute them to the organization. How do you envision that working?

[Viviane LaPointe, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

I want to make it clear that there isn't a new or added layer of administrative burden being created by this bill. Restitution orders exist within the Criminal Code now. They are managed through those. This would simply continue along within a process that already exists.

[Marilyn Gladu, Liberal, Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong, ON]

Thank you very much. I wish you the best of luck.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Thank you very much.

We're moving to Monsieur Fortin for two and a half minutes.

Please go ahead.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Ms. Wells, I was talking to you earlier about the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights. I would like to revisit the evidence that will have to be produced and the procedural framework set out in the bill of rights.

Aren't you concerned that trials will be abandoned because, at present, the delays for criminal cases are much too long and they can't be completed within the deadlines prescribed and deemed reasonable under the bill of rights by the Supreme Court?

I'm concerned that this will burden the proceedings because almost every trial will require that a certain number of hours be devoted to establishing the harm and the link between the harm and the fault of the accused or the guilty party in this case.

Is that one of the factors you considered when you decided it would be appropriate to go ahead with this bill?

[Joanna Wells, Senior Counsel and Team Lead, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice]

I'll ask my colleague Mr. Godlewski to take that question, if that's okay.

[Aleksander Godlewski]

To answer your question, we haven't evaluated the specific amount of time that would be added.

There could be situations where there would need to be evidence added for those points. Generally, the intention is that restitution is supposed to be a very easily quantifiable expense, not one the court needs to untangle, for example, a complex commercial transaction or that kind of thing.

We haven't done this assessment specifically, but it is possible that evidence would need to be heard.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Okay.

Ms. Lapointe, do you have any specific examples in mind for what you were telling us earlier about the possibility of restitution for victims?

Are there any specific cases in which the courts have ruled, and how long did it take for the hearing to be held?

[Viviane LaPointe, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

The bill is not based on a specific case. The services included in the bill were recommended by victim services agencies.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Thank you. Were victim surcharges taken into consideration?

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Your time is up.

I apologize.

We're moving to Mr. Gill for five minutes.

Please go ahead, sir.

[Amarjeet Gill, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thanks to all of you.

MP Lapointe, do you think most drug dealers have the money to pay a restitution order?

[Viviane LaPointe, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

As I stated before, restitution orders exist today. Judges provide restitution to victims of crime. It would very much be the purview of the judge presiding over the case to determine ability to pay.

I will tell you that whether the degree of enforceability is strong or not, we don't abandon restitution orders. We know they are not always collected. What we need to do is strengthen them. That is what this bill aims to do. Again, providing some definitions to the judge would give them some tools to explore that avenue—if it's appropriate for a case and for the criminal standing before them.

[Amarjeet Gill, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Prosecutors drop half the cases in Canada. Every day, serious crimes against a person get dropped because we don't have enough Crown lawyers or courtrooms.

Will an influx of financial hearings in drug cases add an extra burden to the court system?

[Viviane LaPointe, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

I'm not sure I understand the question. I'm sorry.

[Amarjeet Gill, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

I can repeat it for you.

Prosecutors drop half the cases in Canada. Every day, serious crimes against a person get dropped because we don't have enough Crown lawyers or courtrooms.

Will an influx of financial hearings in drug cases add an extra burden to the court system?

[Viviane LaPointe, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Again, restitution orders already exist within the judicial system. They are there. Judges deal with restitution orders within their courts on a regular basis. This doesn't add bureaucracy. This doesn't add to a caseload. It simply adds definitions for a judge when making a decision on restitution within their courts and within the case that appears before them.

[Amarjeet Gill, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Do you think community organizations have the time and resources to produce readily ascertainable expense reports? Do they have the time and resources to go to the court?

[Viviane LaPointe, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

I'm glad you asked that question because that was a concern raised when we had the debate in the chamber.

I actually went back and did some further consultations with agencies. What they told us was that because most of their funding comes from federal, provincial or municipal grants, they have to keep track of all of those costs when they submit at the end of the funding period. They felt there wasn't an additional burden and that all of those costs, those expenses, have to be kept in order for them to continue receiving grants and funding.

[Amarjeet Gill, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Where do most drugs that enter Canada come from? Are we going to go after citizens of the country for the restitution order?

[Viviane LaPointe, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

So I—

[Amarjeet Gill, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

I will repeat my question. Where do most drugs that enter Canada come from? Are we going to go after citizens of that country for restitution orders? Is that at all feasible in the current climate?

[Viviane LaPointe, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

I'm not here to talk about police enforcement or police strategies. I can tell you that I did meet with the chief of police in Sudbury, who told me that the private member's bill was discussed and dealt with at the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police. They endorsed the bill and felt that it was a very worthy step in terms of accountability towards the crimes and the criminals committing those crimes.

[Amarjeet Gill, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

You used to work with David Lametti. David Lametti referred to drug dealers as “a single mother, a person who needs to put bread on the table”. Is your view different?

[Viviane LaPointe, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Again, this bill is very much targeted towards making criminals accountable not only for the crimes they commit, but also for the harm those crimes cause to victims as well as communities and the organizations that are providing services to those victims of crimes.

[Amarjeet Gill, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Chair, do I have more time?

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

You have 15 seconds left.

[Amarjeet Gill, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Okay. That's all.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Thank you very much.

We will move to Ms. Lattanzio.

Please go ahead for five minutes.

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, MP Lapointe, for your private member's bill. Congratulations.

My questions are going to be directed to the officials.

Why is it important that restitution orders be based on losses that can be quantified and supported by evidence before the courts?

[Aleksander Godlewski]

As we've talked a bit about it today, these orders are really rooted in the sentencing process. That informs those considerations. It's also because the courts have been very clear that these orders are not intended to take over the role of the civil courts. Criminal courts are not the right place, frankly, to be untangling complex transactions or to be determining complex questions of fault. It really is because of how related they are to the sentencing process.

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Can organizations face significant costs when supporting victims of crime and responding to the impacts of this criminal activity in their communities?

[Aleksander Godlewski]

If I understand the question, it is currently possible for organizations to receive restitution orders if they do fall under the types of expenses that are contemplated in section 738, for example.

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

How would this make it fairer?

[Aleksander Godlewski]

I won't speak to the fairer part, but what I'll say is that, on my reading, the part about this bill that is novel is not the fact that organizations can receive the orders. What it does that's different is it allows organizations to be paid for new types of expenses related to certain offences for drug and human trafficking. In that sense, the general provisions in section 738 aren't really written to address expenses where someone is paying an expense to help someone else as a result of a crime. That's where this bill is doing something different.

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

When Parliament creates this new restitution mechanism, what are some of the key legal and operational considerations that one must take into account?

[Aleksander Godlewski]

The courts have been clearer previously about the role of restitution and the importance of restitution in the sentencing process. Some of those types of important considerations will be whether these expenses can be easily proven. For example, are they readily ascertainable? Are they likely to be connected to specific offenders? All of those things would be important considerations.

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Would it be fair to say that any restitution framework must strike a balance between supporting those affected by crime while also remaining in a workable state for courts to administer?

[Aleksander Godlewski]

I think that's a fair statement. If there's a framework that's not workable for a court to administer, it's unlikely to be used by the court, so I think it's a fair statement.

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Okay.

Can you speak to the importance of ensuring that the Criminal Code provisions are applied consistently across the different forms of victimization, including trafficking, sexual violence, intimate partner violence and criminal harassment?

[Aleksander Godlewski]

When we're in the process of designing a policy, one of the key questions we ask is, what's the intent of the policy? In that respect, as I understand from the preamble of this bill, it's designed to address drug and human trafficking and their impacts on communities.

It's always a useful question to ask if there are related types of offending if that is something also worth looking at.

I think it's a good question and a fair consideration for the committee.

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

With regard to the element of judicial discretion, why is it such an important factor in the restitution orders or in this private member's bill?

[Aleksander Godlewski]

Restitution orders play a very important role in the sentencing process. They can achieve a lot of the objectives of sentencing. Sentencing is an individualized exercise that courts undertake, so in that respect it's important. To answer your question, judges are conducting individual assessments that depend quite a lot on the facts of the case. It's a very important consideration for that reason.

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

From a criminal law perspective, what challenges can arise when attempting to distinguish between direct losses caused by an offence and broader social costs associated with crime?

[Aleksander Godlewski]

I would add briefly that the criminal process comes into play after a crime has been committed when we're talking about sentencing. If we're talking about the broader social costs of crime, many of those expenses can be seen in many different areas of society. For example, I note that one of the expenses listed in this bill is related to harm reduction programs. Some of the costs that organizations bear sometimes are at different stages of that process. When we're talking about criminal sentencing, we're talking about sentencing after a crime has already happened.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Baber, you have five minutes.

[Roman Baber, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Thank you.

I have a couple of questions for the officials, but first I want to address Madam Lapointe very briefly. I really want to put politics aside.

I do thank you for bringing this bill forward. About 20 years ago, my last year of law school, I was a supervisor at a community legal aid clinic. I dealt with very many organizations, the type of organizations that you contemplate. However, I do have to say that I take exception to the fact that you propose to provide restitution for organizations that actually perpetuate crime in the community, that contribute to crime in the community. I kindly ask that you perhaps reconsider those at amendment stage.

Ms. Wells, I understand that, on average, less than 2% of cases actually enjoy restitution orders as of the last couple of years. Am I in the ballpark?

[Joanna Wells]

The data the department uses is from Statistics Canada. We commissioned it in 2025, so our numbers are slightly different from the numbers we've been hearing throughout the debate. I will just put those on the record.

What we know is that, generally, restitution is ordered in 4% to 5% of all cases, but for cases where restitution might be more appropriate, such as property crimes, those numbers increase significantly. What we know from the StatCan data is that, for fraud and mischief in particular, restitution can be ordered in approximately 28% of cases.

[Roman Baber, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

What is the percentage of collections on those restitution orders?

[Joanna Wells, Senior Counsel and Team Lead, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice]

That's a very different situation.

To be clear, enforcement of restitution orders falls to the provinces. It's under their jurisdiction for property and civil rights and outside of the criminal and federal sphere of influence. I don't have data on the number that are collected, but we know it's lower than those that are issued, and it is a challenge.

[Roman Baber, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

In 2023, it was half a per cent.

[Joanna Wells]

It is very low. It's something the department is seized with and that we—

[Roman Baber, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Part of the concern I have is that, while we're all very well intentioned, in practicality, there is no collection.

I want to move on to Mr. Godlewski.

In thinking about civil law, who would be enforcing a restitution order? Would it be the province? Would it be the beneficiary of the order?

[Aleksander Godlewski]

That's a very good question. There are different types of restitution that can be ordered in the code, so the answer can depend on which type we're talking about.

If we're talking about section 738, the code provides that it's enforceable as a civil judgment if it's unpaid. The provinces are responsible for the enforcement, but, ultimately, if the order is not enforced, it falls to civil enforcement. There are some provinces that have programs to help victims.

[Roman Baber, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

The focus here is drug offences. Presumably, we're talking about trying to enforce and collect from individuals who are busy with the drug trade, something that I doubt would happen often.

Because we're in a federal jurisdiction after all, do restitution orders survive bankruptcy?

[Aleksander Godlewski]

They do.

[Roman Baber, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

In other words, if a convict is ordered to pay restitution and they declare bankruptcy—and I mean that in the technical term of a bankruptcy assignment—a restitution order survives.

I'm not sure you're correct.

[Aleksander Godlewski]

I—

[Roman Baber, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Sexual offences resulting in a tort judgment survive, and obviously, fraud survives, but I'm not sure that a general criminal offence survives. The Conservative vice-chair thought that they wouldn't even survive a proposal, even though a proposal would reduce such a debt.

This is an interesting question for....

[Joanna Wells]

Our understanding of case law on the issue of restitution, including from the Supreme Court, is that restitution orders do survive a bankruptcy declaration.

Whether they are enforced and paid post-bankruptcy is not something we can speak to, but legally, they do survive.

[Roman Baber, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Godlewski.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Thank you very much.

Now, we'll move on to Ms. Doly Begum for five minutes.

[Doly Begum, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Thank you very much, Chair. Congratulations on your appointment.

I also want to thank MP Maloney for his six months as chair. I think he did a fabulous job.

Moving on to the PMB that we are here to speak to—I know we're short on time—I want to first congratulate you, Ms. Lapointe, on bringing this bill forward.

I know you've done a lot of consultation and have worked with a lot of organizations. Listening to the conversation reminded me of my time working with Victim Services Toronto and the work they do to support so many families, so many victims throughout the process as they go through the justice system.

I wanted to first ask if you could take us back and talk about what problem you were seeking to address when you conceived of this bill and what made you bring it forward.

[Viviane LaPointe, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Through you, Madam Chair, at its core, this bill is simple, but it really is about fairness.

You have community organizations on very limited budgets that are providing essential services to the victims of these crimes. At the same time, those who profit from these crimes aren't held accountable. They aren't held accountable for the crimes, for the harm that those crimes create for the victims, for the communities and for the organizations that provide services. Whether it is the police, paramedics, our health care system, emergency workers or mental health and addictions shelters, there's a long list of community organizations that provide those really important services.

I remember when I talked to one victim of human trafficking, she said, “The funding ends, but the trauma does not.” She was a really strong advocate for the restitution orders and the need to support those community organizations that have supported her through her journey.

[Doly Begum, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Thank you so much for that, Ms. Lapointe. It's one of the things I've come across in working with a lot of women who find themselves in a loop, working with different organizations who don't have the resources.

You mentioned frontline services. Many Canadians may not realize the role these organizations play after a crime occurs. Can you speak to the types of services they provide to victims and communities?

You talked a little bit about the interview that you had with organizations, but could you describe the types of services they provide?

[Viviane LaPointe, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

There's a range of services they provide, from very immediate life-saving interventions for people who are suffering from addictions to shelter and support for victims of those crimes. There are also a lot of counselling and support services, as they transition and move through their journey.

Many of the people end up being either at risk or homeless. Providing support to the people living in unhoused conditions is something that we see. There are many services across a continuum of care. There are also emergency departments and services within the mental health and addictions services that we see. They are all there. They all step up and, honestly, I think they also keep our community together as they provide these services to the victims of these crimes.

[Doly Begum, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Absolutely.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Thank you very much.

That concludes your time, Ms. Begum.

Mr. Fortin, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would like to ask the departmental representatives a question.

Earlier, I talked about time frames for hearing these cases, thereby leaving less time for the courts to hear criminal cases. We know that these time frames are limited under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. However, there's another issue I haven't discussed with you yet that I believe is important: jurisdiction.

As we all know, civil law falls under provincial jurisdiction. In my opinion, section 738 of the Criminal Code, which provides for compensation, already goes a bit further than what the Constitution Act, 1867 provides for. That's just my opinion, though. To my knowledge, the Supreme Court has not yet ruled on the jurisdictional validity of section 738.

In this case, the scope of section 738 is being expanded—or rather, this is an attempt to expand it. Have you looked at whether this is possible? Isn't it under the jurisdiction of the provincial civil courts?

[Aleksander Godlewski]

There is some case law on an earlier version of the provision in the case of The Queen v. Zelensky, where the Supreme Court considered the validity of a restitution order from a constitutional perspective.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Did you say the Supreme Court?

[Aleksander Godlewski]

Yes.

We haven't conducted an assessment. It's on an earlier version of the section than this one, but we haven't conducted an assessment specifically on this bill.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Can you provide the committee with the details of the Supreme Court's decision regarding the jurisdictional issue—namely, that the federal legislator has jurisdiction over section 738 of the Criminal Code?

[Joanna Wells]

Absolutely.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Thank you.

Please continue, Mr. Godlewski.

[Aleksander Godlewski]

That was my answer. Maybe I—

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Sorry, I thought I interrupted you. The schedule always forces us to rush things a bit. Basically, I was asking you how this can be resolved.

Decisions will have to be made. The issue of surcharges is straightforward—it's a fine. Another issue is compensation under the bill of rights, and another is conviction. How will all this be reconciled, and how will it be resolved if the inmate doesn't have enough money to pay a surcharge, plus an order for restitution to the victim, plus an order for restitution to the organization? How will this be resolved?

[Aleksander Godlewski]

That's a good question.

Ultimately, it will come down to a judge in an individual case.

I'd note, for example, that the victim surcharge functions a little bit differently from the restitution provision. It serves a little bit of a different purpose in that it's providing general funding for victim services as opposed to specific reparation for someone who's injured.

It's a valid consideration, and it would be a judge in an individual case who determines which structure of those provisions best meets the objectives of sentencing for that offender.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Thank you very much.

You got almost an extra minute there, Mr. Fortin.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

You're a wonderful chair, Ms. Khalid.

Thanks.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

I want to say thank you very much to our witnesses.

Thank you, Madam Lapointe, for your bill and for coming in today.

Thank you to our officials.

Before we adjourn, we have a quick motion for approval of our budget for Bill C-238. It has been circulated. Is everyone in favour?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Thank you.

This meeting is adjourned.