There's no question that the safety of the witness might be the most common consideration, but it might not be the only one. Even in the case that I believe Mr. Krongold referred to and that we would refer to, the Named Person v. The Vancouver Sun case, the Supreme Court said there could be an issue for a confidential source as well.
At the end of the day, the proposal before the committee seeks to provide a framework for a court to make a decision based on the facts and circumstances of that case as appropriate, using a test that is well established. As Madame Boivin has indicated, these are not decisions the courts take lightly, and they're not made on a frequent basis. It's to provide another tool so that the evidence can be brought before the court. If a witness testifies using a pseudonym, the court still has to assess the weight to be given to that evidence. The accused will still have the right, through counsel, to cross-examine the witness. So it is being proposed within the context of what exists now.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])