Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her excellent speech, which was her second this evening.
I should point out that many NDP members have made speeches in the House this evening. However, many members of the other parties have remained very silent. In the last six hours, I think I heard only one Conservative member. Frankly, I think that this bill deserves a much more rigorous debate than what we have seen so far this evening. I am therefore wondering why the Conservatives were in such a hurry to force us to sit until midnight when, in fact, they have nothing to say.
However, my colleague has raised some very interesting points that deserve our attention.
Court decisions have shown that, when a person has no means to make restitution to a victim, that in fact is not a restitution. Moreover, a restitution risks being a sanction that adds to a sanction already handed down by the court or the Superior Court.
How could we have a bill that does not come with an envelope and that does not propose any funding for victims?
Restitutions to victims are monetary in nature. According to the Supreme Court, a restitution that an accused cannot afford to pay is a mechanical restitution, which should not exist.
I wonder if my colleague could comment on that.