This bill changes the Criminal Code of Canada to allow courts to order offenders to pay restitution to community organizations that offer front-line services. These services include emergency care, victim support, harm reduction, security, and mental health support. The bill aims to help organizations recover costs caused by crimes related to drugs and human trafficking. It details what types of expenses can be compensated and sets limits on the amounts payable. The goal is to ensure community groups can get proper money back when they are affected by crime.
If you or your community are affected by crimes such as drug trafficking or human trafficking, this bill could help the community organizations that support victims and provide emergency help. When a crime occurs, the court can require the offender to pay the organization for specific expenses, like emergency medical supplies, security upgrades, or extra staff costs. This helps communities recover some of the financial costs caused by crimes that impact public safety and health.
The bill authorizes restitution payments for expenses related to:
The law states that the amounts paid should be reasonable and based on actual expenses that can be easily verified. The bill does not specify maximum amounts or total costs, but restricts payments to expenses that are reasonable and directly related to the crime. Data unavailable on overall costs or the number of cases affected.
Supporters say this bill helps community organizations recover costs caused by crimes, especially drug and human trafficking. They argue that providing restitution encourages offenders to take responsibility for their actions and supports community safety. The bill recognizes the important role these organizations play and seeks to provide them with financial assistance for expenses that are often unpaid. They believe this will improve community resilience and better protect vulnerable populations.
Opponents might argue that the bill could increase legal and administrative burdens on courts, making it harder to process cases efficiently. They also worry that defining reasonable expenses might be complicated and lead to inconsistent payments. Some critics may feel it could be difficult to ensure offenders pay the full restitution rather than just part of it. Additionally, opponents might question whether this law effectively deters crime or simply shifts costs onto offenders, potentially impacting fairness in the justice system.