Chair, in other committees involving justice it is quite strict as well, so we'll find no difference with that.
Mr. Minister, thank you for coming. It's very good to see you. It's very good to have you here on a bill with which we largely will have no disagreement in principle. However, as you know, these committees are here for a purpose, to go through some of the technical aspects to ensure that due diligence has been given, not only, I am sure, at the departmental level, but obviously here at the legislative level.
Just by way of review, I think this department and you, Mr. Minister, are building on a number of amendments to judicial interim release, starting from the 1869 rule that it was always discretionary. There were a number of reforms, particularly in the last 30 years, with the Bail Reform Act and others, that clamped down on the discretion for many types of offences.
Cutting to the quick, the department, I take it, would be relying on Regina v. Hall and Regina v. Pearson, two cases out of the Supreme Court that I've had a look at. I will not lie to this committee. I did not read them in their entirety--yes, I'm sorry, Mr. Moore, I did not read them from end to end. However, I was interested to note that they were not unanimous decisions and they certainly couldn't have dealt with the same type of offences, because this legislation wasn't in existence.
Those two cases dealt--particularly I'm thinking of Pearson--with drug-related offences. I can see that some of the principles are transferrable. I agree with that. However, there are some concerns in the dissent on which I would want assurance that from the legislative due diligence point of view they have been covered off.
Mr. Minister, this is without any due disregard for your own esteemed opinion, being a Queen's counsel and a member of the legal bar for some time, but the department must, I think, assure this committee and this side that the guarantee of the presumption of innocence, both procedurally and substantively, has been satisfied with the interplay of sections 11 and 7 of the charter in writing this legislation. Perhaps I could ask one of your assistants, or one of the other witnesses, Mr. Minister, to assure the committee that this will be free of the charter challenge if it scripts Pearson and Hall correctly and doesn't fall into the trouble that some of the people and the justices in the dissenting opinions put forward.