Viviane Lapointe

Mr. Speaker, in Sudbury, we know that our natural resources are the core of our economy. They support thousands of jobs and keep our local businesses alive. In order for these benefits to materialize, projects need to move forward efficiently. Could the Minister responsible for One Canadian Economy explain why it is so important to create a regulatory environment that makes it possible to carry out these projects, which are essential for communities like Sudbury and for Canada's economic future?

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to recognize National Mining Week. When we talk about mining, we are not just talking about extraction. We are talking about an important foundation for Canada's economic security, defence and global competitiveness. In 2025, the sector contributed $157 billion to Canada's GDP, demonstrating its importance to our economy and the scale of opportunity as demand for critical minerals accelerates worldwide. From exploration to manufacturing, this sector supports over 700,000 jobs across the country, and it is poised to create even more opportunities in the years to come. From the Major Projects Office to important investments and strategic international alliances, we are accelerating projects by streamlining approvals, unlocking investment, developing infrastructure and strengthening partnerships. As we mark National Mining Week, we recognize the workers, communities, indigenous partners, innovators and industry leaders helping build Canada's mining future.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honour the memory of Vinod and Shilpa Patel, two constituents of Sudbury who tragically lost their lives on April 7 in a highway accident on Highway 69. This is not an isolated tragedy. Sadly, Highway 69 has claimed too many lives. For years, the people of Sudbury and northern Ontario have been promised that this dangerous corridor would be completed. Those promises have gone unfulfilled, and families are paying for that inaction with their lives. I have written to Premier Ford urging him to finally deliver on this long overdue commitment. The four-laning of Highway 69 is, in every way, a matter of life and death. Vinod and Shilpa Patel deserved to come home. Their families deserve better. Every driver on that road deserves better. I call on the Government of Ontario to act before another family is torn apart on a highway that should have been made safe years ago.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking my colleagues from all parties who have spoken to Bill C-238. What we have heard during debate across all party lines is something important. There is broad agreement on the problem. Members spoke about the toll of addiction, trafficking and exploitation in their communities. They spoke about first responders, outreach workers and volunteers stretched to the limits. They spoke about the real and growing pressure on the very people who step in when others cannot. On that, we all agree. Where we differ is on the solution. Some have suggested that the bill would add process without value, that it would create administrative burden or that it offers a promise that cannot be delivered. I would like to address those concerns this evening directly. First, the bill would not create a new system. Restitution already exists in the Criminal Code. Judges already have the discretion to order it. Bill C-238 would clarify that restitution can include community organizations when they can demonstrate measurable costs tied to the offence. This is not duplication, but direction. It reflects what we already know, which is that harm from these crimes does not stop with one individual; it ripples outwards, into shelters, emergency rooms and counselling services, the very organizations that hold communities together. Second, on the question of administrative burden, we have heard the concern that organizations would be required to track and document costs in ways they cannot manage, but the organizations themselves are telling us something very different. I have met with frontline workers who already track detailed data every day for funding and for reporting. They know exactly what it costs to respond to an overdose. They know what it costs to keep a shelter open overnight. They know what it costs to support a survivor of trafficking. These are not abstract numbers. These are real and documented costs. The bill would not ask them to create something new. It would give legal recognition to what already exists. Third, there have been concerns about enforceability and that restitution orders may not always be collected. That is true today, and it is also true, unfortunately, for individual victims as well, but we do not abandon restitution because it is imperfect. We improve it because accountability matters, and even when restitution is partial, it is meaningful. It tells victims and those who support them that the justice system recognizes their loss. It tells offenders that the harm they caused has consequences beyond their sentence. This is not symbolic. It is restorative. Finally, there has been concern that the bill could somehow take away from individual victims. Let me be clear. It would not. Individual victims remain the priority. Judges retain full discretion. The bill would simply add an additional pathway, not a competing one. At its core, the bill is about something very simple. It is about fairness. Right now, community organizations absorb the cost of crime every single day, with limited resources and little recognition within the justice system. At the same time, those who profit from that harm are not being held accountable in a way that reflects the full scope of the damage they have caused. The bill would close that gap. Police respond to the same overdose calls night after night. Outreach workers are stretched to the breaking point. Organizations have said clearly they are carrying these costs and the system does not see them. This is the reality that the bill responds to. It would not add burden, but it would recognize reality. It would not create bureaucracy, but it would enable accountability. It would not replace existing tools, but it would make them work better. Bill C-238 would ensure that, when harm is proven, repair can follow. We all agree that these crimes have devastating impacts. We all agree that frontline organizations are under strain. The bill is an opportunity to act on that shared understanding, to give our courts a clearer tool, to support the people doing the work and to ensure that justice reflects the full reality of the harm. I ask colleagues to allow the bill to go to committee so we can hear directly from victims, survivors, police and frontline organizations. Rather than deciding for them, here in the House, what works for them, we must ensure their voices are part of this process.

Mr. Speaker, over one-third of Canadians are hit with NSF fees, non-sufficient funds fees, and those fees can be as high as $50. That is money Canadians could be using to put towards rent, food and other essential items. Can the Minister of Finance tell the House how we are helping Canadians with affordability by capping NSF fees and lowering banking costs?

Mr. Speaker, Canadians elected a new government with a mandate to build Canada strong. This means investing in our workers, our industries and our supply chains by unlocking new opportunities and investing in our sovereignty. This also means investing in the brave men and women who are members of our Canadian Armed Forces. Can the Minister of National Defence provide an update on what we are doing to build Canada's defence industry while supporting our Canadian Armed Forces?

Madam Speaker, earlier we heard our colleague from British Columbia talk about the importance of approaching these types of projects with a degree of responsibility as opposed to the degree of recklessness that we have seen across the aisle. Can my colleague from Alberta, perhaps in his opinion, identify for us some of those elements that would define responsibility versus recklessness in approaching these types of major projects?

Mr. Chair, I have been listening to my colleague from Oshawa. My riding is Sudbury. It is a mining town and a union town, with good union jobs and union workers. I know that the member would understand that. When I hear my colleague talk about just getting out of the way, I have to say that union members feel that means you are not supporting them. When you have Unifor that has—

Mr. Chair, Unifor has endorsed the budget and the actions of this government in ensuring that we are there for workers. When my colleagues talk about getting out of the way, do they understand the impact that has on workers who then feel they are essentially saying they would not be there for workers?

Mr. Chair, it is my pleasure to participate in the debate to highlight how the government is delivering on our commitment to protect not only Canada's automotive industry but also its workers. For decades, the Canadian auto industry has created good jobs for the middle class and stimulated economic growth that benefits all Canadians. It is truly a powerful economic engine. Today's Canadian auto sector, like so many industries, is navigating a highly uncertain stretch of highway. The global trade landscape is rapidly changing as the U.S. fundamentally transforms all of its business relationships. We can no longer rely on our most important trading relationship like we used to. We need to strengthen our capacity at home. Our government has taken strategic steps to help workers and businesses in the sectors most affected by U.S. tariffs. One of those, of course, is the auto industry. Before I begin detailing our government's support for the auto sector, I will illustrate how vital it is to Canada. The industry provides approximately 125,000 direct jobs, while it supports more than 500,000 Canadians across the country. It makes up approximately 8% of Canada's manufacturing GDP and 0.7% of the country's overall GDP. In 2024, Canada produced roughly 1.3 million light vehicles, of which approximately 1.1 million were exported to the United States. Our government acted quickly to support Canada's auto sector as it is trying to deal with the challenges of the U.S. trade actions. Within days of the tariff imposition, our government implemented an auto remission framework that incentivized production and investment in Canada. It allowed automakers that continue to manufacture vehicles in Canada to import a set quantity of U.S.-assembled, CUSMA-compliant vehicles into our country free of countermeasure tariffs imposed by our government. However, companies must maintain specific production levels and follow through on their planned investments in Canada. The main objective is to maintain Canada's auto manufacturing footprint and protect Canadian workers. Our government has also shown it is willing to take decisive action to protect Canadian jobs. Earlier this fall, we announced significant reductions to the import quotas of General Motors and Stellantis. These decisive steps followed the automakers' unacceptable decisions to scale back their manufacturing presence in Canada, a move that directly breached their commitments to the country and Canadian workers. General Motors' decision to cut production at its Oshawa and Ingersoll facilities and Stellantis' decision to cancel all production plans at its Brampton assembly plant constitute a repudiation of their commitments. Our government has done even more to support Canada's auto industry. We are transforming our economy to build a more resilient and diversified future. As part of this effort, we are positioning our businesses to thrive. Many businesses that have relied most heavily on trade with the U.S. need temporary immediate relief from liquidity pressures. The auto sector falls into this category. That is why our government announced last September its intent to make targeted regulatory adjustments to help the automotive sector stay competitive during this period of uncertainty caused by U.S. trade and policy measures. Changing the policy to remove the target for the 2026 model year vehicles will help reduce the economic pressure caused by tariffs. We are taking a measured approach, supporting our industries today while keeping a clear focus on a sustainable future. Our government responded quickly, forcefully, and decisively to the unfair tariffs the United States imposed on Canadian products.

Mr. Chair, earlier this evening I talked about being the MP for the riding of Sudbury, which is heavily reliant on mining as its sector, so I understand when a community is very reliant on a particular sector that creates and offers good-paying jobs and the impact it may have in that community when that industry is threatened. In this case, we have heard our Prime Minister often say that we can only control what we can control, and that is why we have seen our government put in really important measures to protect and support or automotive industry, as well as the workers in that industry.

Mr. Chair, I actually welcome that question because it allows me to talk about what we have done and the reaction that has received from people who are directly impacted. I will quote Unifor, the largest private sector union in Canada with over 300,000 members: “Building a resilient economy means ensuring that the commitments outlined in the federal budget translate into good, union jobs for Canadian workers”. That is about the budget we tabled here just last month, and that was Unifor national president, Lana Payne, who also said, “Trump's tariffs are an existential threat, and Canada must fight back to protect working families and industries alike.” Unifor supports the 2025 budget and the measures we have taken as a government.

Mr. Chair, as a government, it is very important for us to stand up for the industry and Canadian workers. We need to have a strategic plan that addresses both priorities. We need to help not only the industry, but also the workers and to protect jobs that offer so much to a community. That is why our government's plan addresses these two very important priorities.

Mr. Chair, that question allows me once again to talk about the reaction we have received in the industry. The Global Automakers of Canada, the Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers' Association and the Automotive Industries Association of Canada are all very supportive of the steps our government has taken.

Mr. Chair, my colleague talked about some of the meetings he has had and the discussions he has had, and I am wondering if in those meetings he met with the Global Automakers of Canada, or the Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers' Association, or the Automotive Industries Association of Canada, all of which have been supportive of the actions our government has taken toward protecting the jobs in this industry as well as the manufacturers. In fact, Global Automakers of Canada has stated that, with the work the government is undertaking, they are very encouraged by the response. Has he met with some of these large groups?

Mr. Speaker, Canadians support our efforts to diversify Canadian trade. That is why our government is on a mission to double non-U.S. exports over the next decade and to unleash $1 trillion in new investments in Canada. Every door the Prime Minister opens means more opportunities for the businesses in my riding to reach new markets, grow their business and create jobs in Sudbury. Can the Minister of International Trade update Canadians on the landmark investments delivered by the Prime Minister and say why leadership on the world stage matters?

Mr. Speaker, northern Ontario has a proud mining legacy. We are known across the globe as a mining powerhouse, and we are ready to lead in the clean economy. The Minister of Energy and Natural Resources visited our region last week, where he saw first-hand the real opportunities that northern Ontario offers to our government's plan to grow our economy. Having major projects from northern Ontario included on the list sends a clear signal that northern Ontario is at the centre of Canada's critical mineral future. Can the minister tell us what this means for the workers and local communities of our region?

moved that Bill C‑238, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (restitution orders), be read the second time and referred to a committee. Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise in the House today to speak to my bill, Bill C‑238, an act to amend the Criminal Code with regard to restitution orders. Every day in Canada, community organizations step in to support those affected by crime. They save lives, counsel survivors, and help families and neighbourhoods rebuild, yet the very people who absorb the cost of those crimes have no formal place in restitution. Bill C-238 would change that. It would ensure that when an offender is held accountable, communities that bear the harm can share in the repair, and it recognizes community harm as part of justice itself. This bill comes from a simple but powerful idea: that justice should recognize not only the individual victim, but also the communities that bear the weight of the harm. Across Canada, our cities, towns and first nations are on the front lines of two intertwined crises: organized crime and the opioid epidemic. The human toll is heartbreaking, but there is also a quiet, grinding cost that falls on the shoulders of community organizations, shelters, counselling services, harm-reduction sites, addiction programs and first responders. Every day, they pick up the pieces after an overdose, after a trafficking rescue or after a family is shattered. They provide care, compassion and safety, often with too few resources and too little recognition. Meanwhile, those convicted of drug trafficking or human trafficking often profit from the suffering they cause. It is entirely appropriate for our courts to be given a clear way to order restitution for those who help victims rebuild their lives. Under section 738 of the Criminal Code, judges already have discretion to order restitution payments made by an offender to compensate for losses. That restitution is rightfully given to individual victims. Let me be clear: Bill C-238 would not change that principle; it would strengthen it. It would clarify and expand who can receive restitution in certain cases. In cases of drug or human trafficking, courts would be able to order restitution directly to a community organization that provides frontline services and can show that it incurred measurable expenses because of that crime. This could include emergency shelters, medical services, harm reduction and overdose prevention programs, security measures for staff and clients, counselling for workers exposed to trauma, and additional staffing or training to meet surging demand. This bill builds on existing judicial tools. It would not require new government spending. It would simply give courts a clearer signal from Parliament that restitution can and should flow where harm is proven and where recovery begins. This is a bill about justice with purpose and about pragmatic compassion. Punishment alone cannot heal the damage caused by trafficking or addiction, but when an offender is required to contribute directly to repairing that harm and when restitution helps fund the very services that support victims, justice becomes tangible. This helps to rebuild trust, restore dignity, and show victims and service providers that the justice system cares about them. In my community of Sudbury, I have met with police, outreach workers, addiction counsellors and victim service agencies. They told me in plain words that the current system leaves community responders invisible. At our meeting with Chief Sara Cunningham of the Greater Sudbury Police Service, she told me that the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police has already discussed this bill and views it as a good and timely effort that would have a real impact across Ontario. She noted that while proceeds of crime can sometimes be allocated to victim support services, resources remain limited. She emphasized that community groups such as Angels of Hope are essential partners in the recovery process and need more consistent funding. Ali Farooq, who runs the Go-Give Project and operates Sudbury's warming centre, shared his support for this bill. His organization recently had to hire 30 additional staff to stay open 24 hours a day, seven days a week. He said plainly they are doing everything they can, but they need fair ways to recover costs directly tied to the crimes they respond to every day. At Angels of Hope, an organization supporting victims and survivors of human trafficking, staff told me they were pleased to see this bill introduced. Its team, made up of survivors themselves, work in difficult conditions with limited short-term grants. As one worker put it, the funding ends, but the trauma does not. They reminded me that Sudbury, Thunder Bay and Niagara are hot spots for trafficking and that too many victims have nowhere safe to go once they are rescued. These are the voices behind Bill C-238. They are not asking for charity. They are asking for fairness and for the ability to recover costs directly tied to the crimes themselves. The preamble of this bill affirms what Parliament already recognizes: that crimes like drug and human trafficking have far-reaching community impacts, that acknowledging and repairing community harm is a legitimate objective of sentencing and that frontline organizations should have a clear legal pathway for restitution from offenders. This is fully consistent with the principles of proportionality, accountability and reparation already embedded in our sentencing framework. It also aligns with the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights, which guarantees victims the right to seek restitution and have their losses recognized by the court. Across Canada, municipalities and service agencies are struggling to absorb the costs of the opioid crisis. According to Health Canada data, more than 38,000 Canadians have died of apparent opioid toxicity since 2016. Behind every number are families, paramedics and community workers who respond to tragedy again and again. In Sudbury, the police service reported a record number of overdose calls last year, and local shelters are often at capacity. Bill C-238 would not change the standard of proof or judicial discretion. It would simply direct what restitution is considered for trafficking offences. The court may include frontline organizations if they demonstrate specific, reasonable costs resulting from the crime. Eligible expenses are practical and narrow: medical supplies, security, counselling and other operational costs that can be verified by receipts or financial statements. This preserves judicial independence while giving meaning to the concept of community harm. This proposal also reflects modern thinking about restorative justice. Restitution is not only about money; it is about accountability. It allows an offender to take part, in a very concrete way, in repairing the damage they caused. For many victims and service providers, that recognition matters as much as the funds themselves. It sends a message that justice is not blind to the broader human impact of crime. In northern Ontario and across the country, frontline workers often feel invisible to the justice system. They see the same individuals cycle through addiction, arrest and relapse. They bear the secondary trauma, yet the system treats them as bystanders. This bill tells them that we see them, we value them and we will empower courts to recognize their losses. Some might ask whether expanding restitution eligibility could reduce what is available to individual victims. It would not. Individual victims remain the first priority. This bill would simply add another category of possible recipients, allowing judges to decide fairly based on the facts of each individual case. Others might ask whether this would create new bureaucracy or costs. It would not. Restitution orders are offender-paid. No new government programs or additional funding are required. The process already exists. We are simply making sure that communities affected by trafficking are not left behind. Some people may also ask why the bill focuses only on drug trafficking and human trafficking. The answer is this: precision. These are crimes that inflict measurable cascading harm and are linked to organized networks that exploit people and communities for profit. By targeting these specific offences, the bill remains focused and effective, addressing the most egregious examples of harm to the community. Local police, frontline agencies and victim support organizations in Sudbury and across northern Ontario have expressed strong support. One outreach coordinator told me that the bill gives them hope that the justice system will finally acknowledge what they live every day. Restitution orders are not a silver bullet, but they are a tool that can complement other efforts, such as treatment, prevention and law enforcement. They reinforce a simple truth: When harm is done, repair should follow. In clarifying that restitution can extend to community organizations, we strengthen local capacity, reinforce public confidence and promote offender accountability in a practical and restorative way. The bill is about bringing the justice system closer to the communities it serves. It is about recognizing that safety and recovery are shared responsibilities. When courts are empowered to acknowledge community harm, they also acknowledge community resilience, the courage of those who keep showing up, shift after shift, to help others heal. Bill C-238 would be a modest but meaningful change. It builds on what already works in our justice system. It asks no more of taxpayers and no less of offenders. It would ensure that restitution serves its true purpose: to help victims and communities heal. I am proud to bring forward legislation that reflects both compassion and accountability. I believe that members on all sides can agree that the costs of these crimes should not rest solely on the shoulders of the people already struggling to respond. The principle is simple: The people who profit from harm should contribute to the repair. To my colleagues, I say that we should stand together for justice that restores as well as punishes, give our judges a clearer path to supporting the organizations holding our communities together and send a message to every community across Canada that Parliament hears them, values them and is willing to act. Let us show Canadians that Parliament listens to them and values them. We are ready to take action.

Madam Speaker, the question goes to the heart of this very bill, which is to make criminals pay for the crimes and the havoc they wreak in our communities. The bill focuses specifically on human trafficking and drugs because we can see the devastating harmful effects these have had in communities all across Canada. In our downtowns, the opioid epidemics and the numbers of deaths are very clear. We know that behind every one of those numbers is a family, and the bill is a step toward bringing justice for them.