Neutral
An Act to amend the Criminal Code (restitution orders)
Bill C-238 amends the Criminal Code to allow courts to order people convicted of human trafficking or certain drug offences to pay restitution to community organizations that provide front-line services. Eligible organizations (not individuals) can recover reasonable, readily ascertainable costs caused by the offence, such as emergency shelter and medical supplies, harm reduction services, security, staff counselling, and surge operational costs. These restitution orders are in addition to any other victim restitution and are capped at the actual expenses incurred. The goal is to acknowledge community harm and shift appropriate costs from taxpayers to offenders.
This bill modestly advances accountability by making offenders, not taxpayers, bear some of the costs their crimes impose on front-line services, supporting safer communities and more efficient public spending. Its macroeconomic effects are limited, but it improves public service efficiency with a focused, low-burden tool if implemented simply.
How will the government ensure restitution to community organizations does not crowd out compensation owed to individual victims when an offender has limited ability to pay, and will courts be directed to prioritize payments accordingly?
What evidentiary standard will be used to show a community organization’s costs were as a result of the offence, and will there be a simple standardized documentation process to avoid bogging down court proceedings?
Given historically low collection rates for restitution orders, what concrete enforcement tools and interprovincial mechanisms will ensure these amounts are actually recovered, and what fiscal impact has been estimated if collections fall short?
Primarily a justice-cost recovery measure; any macroeconomic impact on national prosperity is indirect and likely small.
Does not materially change economic freedom; adds a targeted restitution tool with limited process changes.
No direct effect on productivity or global competitiveness.
Unrelated to trade or export growth.
No direct implications for investment or innovation policy.
Shifts some front-line service costs from taxpayers to offenders, potentially easing municipal and NGO budgets if collections are effective.
No tax measures are affected.
A narrow sentencing change; benefits are targeted and incremental, not economy-wide.
Did we get the builder vote wrong?
Email hi@buildcanada.com