Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Minister, for your attendance here today.
I just want to say how happy I am that the House has directed this bill to committee to be dealt with expeditiously. I think that Canadians across the country were very dismayed by events at a recent mega-trial. This bill responds to that, and I think Canadians want to see it passed.
I notice that in the Canadian Bar Association submission there's an interesting comment about rulings after mistrial. The bill before us gives the judge who hears the second trial discretion to allow the evidentiary rulings that were made previously to continue.
I find it ironic at the very least--having sat on this committee for two years, and having heard the Canadian Bar Association tell me over and over again that they are in favour of judicial discretion--that this is a case where they seem to not be in favour of giving a judge that discretion. Instead they are suggesting that if there were a mistrial--even if evidentiary issues were fully litigated with the same crown and the same defence, and decided--they would not want to give the judge hearing the second or ultimate trial the discretion to accept those evidentiary rulings. Instead they would want to give everybody the chance to go back and have a second bite at the apple, and allow them to try to argue that the initial ruling was wrongly decided.
I don't know what the implications of that would be in slowing down these mega-trials, but I'd be grateful for your comments on why the bill includes that discretion for a judge.