Madam Speaker, every member of the chamber has seen the toll that addiction, trafficking and exploitation take on our communities. I have spoken with first responders who arrive at overdoses of the same people night after night. I have met with outreach workers stretched to the breaking point and with volunteers who keep showing up because no one else will.
I want to begin by recognizing what the bill is trying to do: help those community frontline services that are carrying the heaviest load in the fight against crime and addiction. That is the goal every member can respect, but good intentions alone do not make good law. As we look more closely at Bill C-238, we have to ask whether it would actually deliver on its promise, or whether it would simply add another layer of process to a justice system already overburdened and under-resourced.
Section 738 of the Criminal Code already lets judges order restitution for losses to victims or organizations; the provision is there. It is tested, and it works, though only to a degree, sadly. Restitution has been part of Canada's Criminal Code since the code's inception in 1892, but the reality is that Canadian statistics suggest restitution is rarely ordered. A recent study from Stats Canada confirmed that “a mere 1.6 percent of all cases tried in adult criminal courts that produced a guilty verdict resulted in restitution orders.”
Bill C-238 would add process, not capability. Our justice system does not need another procedural loop; it needs the resources and efficiency to use tools it already has. When we start writing duplicate laws for things already covered, we do not make justice stronger; we make it slower and weak. Here is a case in point: Canadian courts are still suffering from lengthy delays suffered as a consequence of the pandemic.
The bill would apply only to drug offences and human trafficking offences, but if the principle is that communities deserve restitution for the cost of crime, why single out only those two categories? Moreover, if the member for Sudbury were fully concerned about the devastating impacts those two categories of offences have on this country, we would only conclude that she would be equally concerned about prosecuting and sentencing the offenders to real brick-and-mortar jails.
She cannot do this, because she and every member of her party voted in favour of Bill C-5, which repealed mandatory minimum penalties for human trafficking and for all Controlled Drugs and Substances Act offences, which now opens up the availability of conditional sentences, also known as house arrest. This is patently absurd, as the majority of those offences are often conducted in the offender's home.
Communities also absorb costs from organized theft, from gang violence and from sexual exploitation. Victim services offices, police and shelters respond to all of them. The bill draws an arbitrary line that cannot be justified in principle or in policy. If it is fairness we want, this approach would achieve the opposite.
Now let us talk about how restitution would actually work in a courtroom. To issue one of the new restitution orders, a judge would need clear proof that a specific organization suffered a measurable loss because of a particular offender. That is an extremely high bar. Let us consider an overdose, for example. Which trafficker's case caused the hospital's expense for treatment or for overtime staffing?
These are broad social costs that accumulate across dozens of incidents and multiple offenders; we cannot effectively trace them to one person's conviction. Even if we could, community organizations would have to present detailed financial records, such as expense sheets, invoices, staff hours and supply logs to show that their loss was “readily ascertainable”, which is language in the member's bill. Most shelters and non-profits simply do not have the existing accounting systems to generate that kind of documentation.
Instead of helping, the provision would drag them into court, wasting scarce time and resources. Suppose a court somehow gets through all of that and issues an order for tens of thousands of dollars. Then what would happen? The reality is that most offenders in trafficking and drug cases have no money, assets or ability to pay restitution.
Many are already facing lengthy custodial sentences. These restitution orders would sit, uncollected, symbolic, unenforceable and meaningless to the organizations they were meant to help. It creates the illusion of accountability, justice on paper but not in practice.
Our courts are under enormous pressure. Sentencing hearings are complex enough. Judges must weigh aggravating factors, review the evidence and consider pre-sentence reports. The bill would graft a new financial hearing on to that process. Judges would have to review expense records and hear testimony about causation and costs. Prosecutors would have to gather accounting evidence and call witnesses. Defence counsel, of course, would be entitled to challenge every figure and witness. We would end up with longer hearings, more adjournments and a greater backlog. The people waiting for justice would wait even longer, all for restitution orders that, in most cases, will never be collected.
The administrative burden does not stop with the courts. Shelters, treatment centres and first-responder agencies would need to track and document every cost tied to specific offences. That means new record-keeping systems, new paperwork and, probably, new staff to manage it.
Perhaps the most concerning effect of Bill C-238 is the false expectation it would create. It suggests to communities that offenders will somehow pay back the social costs of crime. That is simply not realistic. We all want accountability, but accountability means consequences that can actually be enforced. It means restitution that can actually be paid. The bill would offer neither.
We owe it to Canadians to be honest. The way to help frontline services is not through theoretical restitution orders. It is through real, predictive funding and effective enforcement against the people who cause the harm in the first place.
What is a better approach? Conservatives believe in accountability that works. That also means real consequences. That is why every member on this side of the House voted against the repeal of Bill C-5. We believe in laws that can be enforced and that deliver real outcomes for victims and communities.
If the goal is to strengthen support for frontline organizations, there are better, proven ways to do it. These include investing directly in victim services and treatment programs instead of routing support through uncollectible court orders, as well as ensuring stronger enforcement against organized trafficking networks so that the real criminals, the ones profiting from misery, face meaningful sentences.
That is often the most difficult aspect of policing. They are always trying to get the larger fish in the pond, those who are organizing the street traffickers. It is always a give-and-take, with law enforcement trying to find those who actually organize the criminal enterprise.
We need to modernize restitution enforcement so that when courts do issue orders, they are actually collected. Right now, with a restitution order ordered by the court, victims have a process, but it is through the civil courts. It is often faced with uncertainty, lengthy delays and costs, again, trying to squeeze that orange for a drop of juice from an individual who likely has absolutely zero assets and zero means to pay. We need to support first responders and community staff with dedicated mental health funding. These are practical, targeted solutions that deliver results, not rhetoric.
The principle behind the bill is sincere, but sincerity alone does not make sound policy. At its core, it is unenforceable and burdensome. It asks courts to do the impossible, and it risks diverting energy and resources away from the very real victims and communities it seeks to help.
Justice should be swift, fair and effective. It should focus on outcomes that can be delivered, not aspirations that cannot. We owe it to Canadians to pursue policies that make communities safer and victims stronger. We should not have more paperwork, longer trials and promises we cannot keep. For all of these reasons, regrettably, I cannot support the bill.