Justice Committee on June 10th, 2026

[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?