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.