Again, in my reading of clause 20, it's not clear to me whether that clause applies to the act as a whole or only to the Victims Bill of Rights. It seems to me that clause 20 seems to be talking just about the manner in which the rights described in the previous 19 clauses are to be construed. I don't know that it would have any application to these other amendments that are going to be part of the Criminal Code. Clause 20 isn't part of the Criminal Code—it's a different legislative provision and I don't think it would apply. The other side of it is that clause 22, I believe, talks about how, if there is an inconsistency, the rights take precedence over the limiting section.
There's an intention in clause 20 to say, let's not unduly interfere with other important interests here such as law enforcement interests, delay, ministerial discretion, and those sorts of thing. If there's a conflict one seems to err on the side of the right and not the other interest at stake. To me clause 20 doesn't seem to address these concerns.
In terms of delay, I'll just say that the concern about delay isn't that crowns are going to consult with witnesses or victims in the course of prosecutions. That already happens. There's no reason why that should delay a proceeding. The problem is that the amendments to the Criminal Code talk about applications by victims and applications by witnesses. That means a witness is going to show up at trial. Some witnesses are absolutely well-meaning, honest people. Some witnesses are troublemakers. And some witnesses fall somewhere in between.