Thank you.
I take you at your word from your consultation, Madam Chair, that this is in order with the original bill. However, I would point out that there is an issue in terms of significantly broadening the scope of where restitution money can be given.
Let's compare.
The original bill talks about providing restitution to an organization that “provides front-line services to a community, including emergency services and victim support services”. That's explaining the connection between the restitution and the recipients.
Madame Lapointe's amendment says, “an organization that provides services to a community”, so any community organization could get this money. Someone could be paying restitution because they were convicted of a sexual assault. As it's worded, they could be paying restitution to some anti-pollution community organization. This is a significant broadening.
I think we're generally in alignment with where we want to go with this.
I have a subamendment to this that I'll distribute to everyone in a moment. The subamendment is that the amendment be amended by replacing “an organization that provides services to a community” with “an organization that provides frontline services to victims of the offence or of offences of the same type as the offence”.
There are two key changes brought by the subamendment. Number one, it restores the original demand in the legislation that this be frontline organizations. Number two, it also puts in a connection between the organizations that are getting this money and the type of crime that was perpetrated. This is something we know is a significant issue.
I will have the clerk distribute this.
I wrote it in both official languages. However, I would like the clerk to have the opportunity to check the translation.