I don’t believe that the member was listening as intently as he says, because I did highlight exactly what were the deficiencies in the bill and what I’d like to see improved. It tinkers around the edges, and it doesn’t go far enough. It certainly doesn’t address the challenges and the crisis we have in the court system.

As I’ve mentioned, the central theme of all my remarks today is that this bill is possibly passable but not praiseworthy, and I stand by that.

What I cannot quantify is the emotional harm that it re-creates for those survivors and victims of crime, and that, to me, is a tragedy, because they never got their day in court. They never will get closure on what happened to them, a very traumatic incident. And not to mention, Speaker, the accused: The accused will have that charge and that report hanging over their head forever, also without their day in court.

The top two issues that I would like to see in this bill—and it’s easy—are twofold: One is to adequately staff the courts, to do everything you can in all your powers to ensure that the minimum requirement of time constraints is met. The standard has got to be met. No more throwing out of criminal cases. That is one thing.

The second thing—I’ll add a third if I have time—is to fund legal aid. You need to be able to do it. People are being impacted by not having access to the judicial system that they so rightly deserve.

The third is to fix the tribunals.

Absolutely, I will stand with the government and every party in this House as we advocate for the unification of Family Court. It is unduly unfair to families who are trying to access and navigate two systems. It’s costly, it’s time-consuming and, of course, the emotional duress—it just doesn’t work. We have a proven record of it working when we unify, and that’s where we should be moving to.