The difference is that we have a long phrase which I read quite quickly because I repeat it almost daily in the course of my work and which states: "[...]an order... before a justice of the peace, provincial court judge, judge or judge and jury who speak the official language of Canada that is the language of the accused[...]". It was replaced by: "If an order made under section 530[...]". So, we've taken a long phrase which is repeated in the Criminal Code on several times to define the three types of orders which may be made, and, to lighten the Code a bit, we summarized it in a few words.
If section 21 were struck from the bill further to this committee's deliberations, the same option to obtain such an order that has been in existence since 1978 would remain, for the reasons expressed by the minister.
You must understand that this provision corresponds to the needs expressed by the provinces, and to their respective realities. The circumstances in New Brunswick are quite different from those in Manitoba or B.C. This provision meets the provinces' needs, but it does not prevent New Brunswick or Ontario from holding trials in each legal district, as is currently the case. However, in Manitoba, where the province and the minority are calling for an itinerant court—the minority is asking for this—the province has the needed flexibility to manage the administration of its own justice. So, essentially, nothing has changed.