My question is probably mainly for the officials from the Department of Justice.
I understand the idea underlying clause 17.1, and I agree with its content, but I'm wondering whether it's related to the “Restitution” section, which includes clauses 16 and 17. Clause 16, which has to do with the basic principle, states the following:
16. Every victim has the right to have the court consider making a restitution order against the offender.
In the cases that Mr. Casey mentioned, it is possible for the judge to decide to proceed differently and use restorative justice. One does not preclude the other. Clause 17 states that this will become an enforceable order against the offender if payment is not made.
I am simply trying to see whether it is relevant to table clause 17.1 here. I saw this more as the civil side of the criminal case. That said, I could be mistaken.