Justice Committee on Sept. 24th, 2026

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 37 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

Pursuant to the order of reference of April 22, 2026, the committee will today begin its clause-by-clause study of Bill C-238, an act to amend the Criminal Code regarding restitution orders.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, although I don't believe there are members online. You all know how to conduct yourselves if you are working online. I don't think we need to do any sound tests today, so we're good.

First off, before we get going, I want to welcome Jenny Kwan to the meeting today, and Madame Lapointe, whose private member's bill we are doing clause-by-clause on today.

Welcome, as well, to Mr. Khanna. I think you're pretty new at this. Everybody else is the same old, same old.

Mr. Chang, you're brand new too. That's awesome. Welcome. We're very excited to have you here.

I want to also—

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

Mr. Chang has been “new” for a while, but anyway....

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

You're a real part of it. You've been doing this for over a decade.

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

No, it's not that long.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Well, it's since I've known you. That's awesome.

I have a couple of comments for the benefit of witnesses and members.

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. I remind you that all comments should be addressed through the chair.

There's nobody on a video conference. There's no Zoom.

We will proceed now to the clause-by-clause study of this bill.

With us to answer technical questions, we have, from the Department of Justice, Aleksander Godlewski, counsel, criminal law policy section.

Welcome, Aleksander.

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

I have a point of order.

I believe we need to deal with the election of the vice-chair first.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

I don't think that's the case. We'll do it at the end of the meeting. I want to get through the bill first, if that's okay with you guys.

Thank you.

I was introducing our witnesses.

Jocelyn Sigouin, counsel, criminal law policy section, welcome. Thank you for being here.

On the amendments, as we're going through clause-by-clause, I would like to provide members of the committee with a few comments on how committees proceed with the clause-by-clause consideration of a bill.

This is an examination of all the clauses in the order in which they appear in the bill. I will call each clause successively. Each clause is subject to debate and a vote. If there is an amendment to the clause in question, I will recognize the member proposing it, who may explain it.

Amendments will be considered in the order in which they appear in the package that each member has received from the clerk. Each amendment has been given a number, which is in the top right corner, to indicate which party submitted it. During debate on an amendment, members are permitted to move subamendments if they need to.

Thank you to all the members. I wish everyone a productive clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-238.

We are now going to the annotated agenda.

We're looking at new clause 0.1. I'm asking if anybody would like to move LIB-0.1.

Go head, Madame Lapointe.

[Viviane LaPointe, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Madam Chair, I'd like to move clause 0.1, an amendment that Bill C-238 be amended by adding, after the heading “Criminal Code” after line 15 on page 1 the following:

0.1. Subsection 3.01(2) of the Criminal Code is amended by striking out “and” at the end of paragraph (e) and by adding the following after that paragraph:

(e.1) paragraph 738(1)(f); and

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Is there any debate?

All right. Shall LIB-0.1 carry?

[An hon. member]

No.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

(Amendment agreed to on division)

(On clause 1)

Thank you.

Moving on to clause 1 and LIB-1, would somebody like to move LIB-1?

[Viviane LaPointe, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

I would like to move this amendment.

[Roman Baber, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Madam Chair, would you consider [Technical difficulty—Editor] Madame Lapointe reading the whole thing?

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

I'm not going to be reading the whole thing, but it would be nice to put it on the record. I'm not the one moving it, but I do need to have somebody move it.

It is moved, then, by Madame Lapointe.

Just so you all are aware, if LIB-1 is adopted, CPC-1 and CPC-2 cannot be moved, due to a line conflict.

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

I have a point of order.

Madam Chair, this is a one-clause bill. This amendment basically rewrites the entirety of the bill and, in doing so, changes, I would submit, the scope of the bill. For example, the original bill enumerates the types of organizations. The amendment, which would rewrite the bill, changes this entirely to enumerate offences, not organizations, and it changes the scope of who would get it.

I would submit to you that this amendment to the bill is actually out of order, given that it's fundamentally rewriting the bill.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Thank you for that, Mr. Lawton.

In consultation with both of the people flanking me on my left and right, I have deemed this to be in order. If you would like to challenge my ruling, you're welcome to do so, but I do believe that this amendment is in order.

Okay, we'll move on.

Is there debate on LIB-1?

Mr. Baber.

[Roman Baber, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

If I could just kindly ask counsel....

One of the key suggestions made by the author of the bill and legislative counsel was that priorities should not be affected by virtue of this bill. In other words, in the event that the court indeed orders some sort of restitution, the proposal was that the direct victim of a crime would be a recipient of restitution in priority to any of the organizations listed in the bill. I also understand, in terms of the suggestion behind the amendment, that it maintains such priority.

Could you kindly point me to the actual amendment that preserves priority for victims as opposed to community organizations?

[Jocelyn Sigouin, Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice]

The amendment that would prioritize restitution to victims in LIB-1 is under the proposed subsection 738(1.1), which reads:

If the court orders the payment of an amount under any of paragraphs (1)(a) to (e) and the payment of an amount under paragraph (1)(f), the court must provide that all amounts ordered to be paid under any of paragraphs (1)(a) to (e) have priority over any amount ordered to be paid under paragraph (1)(f).

[Roman Baber, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

That's excellent. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Mr. Lawton.

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

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.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Thank you for that, and thank you for having copies for everybody.

I'm going to suspend while this is being distributed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

I call the meeting back to order.

Mr. Lawton.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

There have been discussions across the parties, and I believe we have an agreement on further wording. I realize you can't subamend a subamendment, so I would seek unanimous consent to change my subamendment to the following.

I move that the amendment be amended by replacing the words “an organization that provides services to a community” with “an organization that provides frontline services to victims of the offence”. It's taking away the last 10 words of the subamendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Thank you.

Does Mr. Lawton have the unanimous consent of the committee to withdraw the subamendment and propose a new one with different language?