Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues for presenting their opinions on Bill C‑238. Now it is my turn to do the same on behalf of the Bloc Québécois.
The purpose of Bill C‑238 is to make restitution available for organizations, often community organizations, that provide frontline services to the community. It would allow organizations to claim damages and interest through criminal proceedings from offenders who commit crimes related to illegal drug trafficking, kidnapping and human trafficking.
The addition proposed in this bill would permit organizations, meaning incorporated entities, to obtain restitution. At present, the law regarding restitution is set out in section 730 of the Criminal Code. A number of restitution orders may be requested at sentencing.
Currently, organizations are excluded, but victims can obtain some degree of restitution through damages and interest in consideration of the harm caused. For example, restitution is available if property was destroyed during the commission of an offence. If an offender enters a home and causes damage during an armed assault or a break and enter, a restitution order may be sought and the offender would be required to pay it.
A restitution order may also be sought in the case of bodily or psychological harm to any person. For example, sexual assault is sure to leave psychological scars, and the Crown prosecutor may apply for an order. The court may also make a restitution order. This is always for damages and interest, but restitution may also cover loss of income. A victim of crime who cannot work may apply to the court for a restitution order. This also covers the threat of bodily harm.
The Criminal Code already contains provisions for ordering an offender to pay amounts to victims in cases of intimate partner violence when the situation results in the children or the mother or father having to relocate for a period of time. An order for restitution may be sought in such situations. The same applies for costs incurred as a result of identity theft. A victim who wishes to re-establish their identity must take certain steps, and the court may order the offender to pay damages. The same applies for reasonable expenses related to removing intimate images from the Internet.
That is the law as it stands. The bill before us would add provisions such that not only victims, but also community organizations that provide services, such as helping individuals with drug addiction or providing shelter, can apply to the court for a restitution order for crimes related to drug and human trafficking, as stated in the bill.
As my colleague mentioned, the intention is laudable. The member sponsoring this bill says that she wants to increase funding for community organizations. That is a laudable intention. To do so, she wants to hit drug traffickers and pimps where it hurts.
The intention is laudable, but unfortunately, the proposed approach is flawed. That is why the Bloc Québécois will vote against this bill. The approach is flawed for several reasons. First, if this measure were adopted, it would force victims to compete with community organizations. As has been mentioned, people may think that drug traffickers are extremely wealthy. Some of them are, but criminals are often poor.
In any case, if the bill is passed, there will come a time when, during sentencing in court, restitution will be sought by both victims and an organization, and the victims could lose out. To get a sense of what this could look like, let us consider the case of a woman who is a victim of human trafficking. One person is charged, and the woman we are talking about is the victim. The defendant pleads guilty. Then comes sentencing. At that point, the court will have to determine who should receive restitution. That is one issue.
One of the obstacles in the bill has to do with causality. My colleague mentioned this. Let me give an example. Let us say it is a case of human trafficking, and a community organization, such as a shelter for abused women, wants to obtain an order. It will have to demonstrate that, as a result of the offence, it incurred expenses for the person's services, for example, or to provide shelter. There is a challenge, because causality will not be easy to prove in every case. It is also important to always remember that most people who are convicted do not have significant financial resources. How effective would this measure actually be?
Another rather significant obstacle is the red tape involved in all this. I think that everyone here must visit community organizations in their ridings from time to time. In my riding, some community organizations recently said that they are stretched thin. They are few in number, they work very hard and they perform miracles. If they wanted to go ahead and use this provision, they need to be aware of the criminal remedies available to them. There is a lot of that in court. A number of charges are dealt with in court. Community organizations should monitor what is happening in the criminal court and make sure they are there at the time of sentencing. Take, for example, an organization that offers addiction treatment. First, they would need to know that there is a court hearing going on that day, and then they would have to show that it was the methamphetamine that was sold by this particular drug dealer that caused the overdose of this specific victim who turned to the organization's services on a specific date. This is not necessarily an easy process for organizations that are already doing outstanding work with limited resources.
The other argument—and I believe this is the decisive one—is that measures already exist to fund community organizations. One specific measure already exists in the Criminal Code and is known as the victim surcharge. Under section 737 of the Criminal Code, the court may impose an additional fine, a victim surcharge, once a person is convicted. The Supreme Court has ruled on this and set parameters, but it used to apply in all cases. Now it is at the discretion of the judge, who may or may not order it. There are certain fixed fine amounts, but it is a mechanism that exists and serves much the same purpose: to take money out of criminals' pockets and use it for good. In Quebec, this money is sent to a fund to help victims of crime, the Fonds affecté à l'aide aux personnes victimes d'infractions criminelles. According to the fund's activity report, only $3.2 million was collected in victim surcharges across the whole of Quebec in 2024–25, so we can see that this is not a panacea and that, in fact, criminals often have limited means. Still, it is better than nothing.
Another existing mechanism involves funds derived from the proceeds of crime. Our justice system already has the means, when conducting criminal investigations and bringing charges, to seize the proceeds of crime and transfer them to the state so they can be used for good. This is already the case in Quebec. CAVAC, the crime victims' assistance centre, is already funded with this money. Several other organizations, including Plaidoyer Victimes, SOS Violence Conjugale, and Éducaloi, are also funded this way.
There are many other options available. If the government truly wants to increase funding, I simply suggest that it increase transfers to the provinces so that we can pass the funds on to our community organizations.