To answer the question about delay versus the victims' rights and those two processes going hand in hand, I agree with Mr. Murie that there are some templates available. Candidly, I think if you are weighing if we adjourn this for three months to have an investigation of whether a victim's rights were violated, that the victim wasn't told about a process, will mean there will be an application under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the accused perpetrator is going to potentially walk free, I think 99.9 victims out of a hundred are going to say that once again they've been revictimized and they would rather see justice done to the accused person.
Unfortunately, unless you turn back to probably before your time when the Charter of Rights and Freedoms came into play, that rule is going to be there and you need whatever it is to make a constitutional amendment these days to change that. You're going to have to enshrine something equally in the charter for victims to weigh that. There are things in the bill that aren't perfect and that allow a judicial officer or a judge to adjourn the process. I think the compromise in your question is that there may be availability, if judges choose to use it, to adjourn and to allow the victim to go and have the complaints process.
I'll echo the third thing Mr. Murie said, that although sections 26 and 27 talk about a federal body and a provincial body, as he and I talked about before this started—he used 90%; I don't know what the percentage is—most of it is going to lie on the municipalities with police officers and crown attorneys. If the provinces don't get on the bandwagon it will be difficult to have an effective complaints process. I hope the ombudsperson watches the complaints process so that we can see themes and maybe we'll be back here in a year changing some things.