I don't know how you can do it absent statistics. What you're doing then is changing the law based upon anecdotal evidence.
Let me refer you to something in Hall. Just for the purpose that it might answer the question, I'm reading from the head note on page 4 of 36, at the last line: “The problem with s. 515(10)(c) is that it allows the subjective fears of the public and ill-informed emotional impulses extraneous to the bail system to form a sole basis for denying bail.” Then: “Section 515(10)(c) cannot be saved under s. 1 of the Charter. First, the respondent did not identify a pressing and substantial objective furthered by the provision.”
That's the same thing the court is going to visit upon this bill later on.
I say to you, Mr. Murphy, that if you got statistics that said the provisions of the tertiary ground as now constituted are not working, then you can have a comfort level in changing a basic principle here. But without them—and you're saying we don't have them, but we're going to change the bill because it doesn't make any difference anyway—That's not right, with great respect, because you're changing a fundamental principle, and that's the erosion of it.
That's the problem, with great respect, that we've been talking about every time we come here. There's a lack of consultation on some of the bills you're dealing with, and you're being asked—all members, all parties—to try to find out what the statistical information is. That's why you call people here to get input.
But if you're not satisfied that the evidence is there, then you can't reach a verdict, and you don't have any evidence. There's no evidence that this bill is needed.
I'm sorry. I don't know whether that answers.