Within the act, under clause 2 of the act, we have all of the declarations of the various rights. Clause 20 within those declarations is one that talks about the “Act is to be construed and applied in a manner that is reasonable in the circumstances” and doesn't “interfere with the proper administration of justice”, and “discretion”, and all of these other sorts of things. It's an overriding interpretation clause or a broad interpretation clause, if you will.
I come back to the constitutional concerns with respect to clause 17 and protecting the identity of witnesses. When read with that clause that I just referenced, can you offer me your opinion as to whether you take any comfort in the existence of this clause 20 contained in clause 2 of the bill when expressing your concerns with respect to the constitutionality of clause 17?