Mr. Goguen, that is the least persuasive argument. I say that with all due respect.
I don't think my interpretation is the same, but that is the beauty of having so many lawyers around the table and among the witnesses. Section 486.31, which was just added through clause 17 of the bill, has so many nuances that the court will be able to proceed in a reasonable and constitutional way.
I agree with other proposed amendments. There are actually cases where that may be necessary. However, I am trying to figure out when that would help victims and people to testify. The most representative case of what you are saying is perhaps organized crime, where an individual might be too afraid, for their own safety and that of their family, to appear in court or have their name released. Amendments will therefore be introduced in that sense.
I don't see clause 17 in the same way as my colleague Mr. Casey. If we establish a good framework and the courts do their job in terms of all the factors listed under paragraphs 483.31(3)(a) to (j), things will go well. I am aware that this does not eliminate the risk of slippage, but we must think of safety and the fact that someone cannot decide not to disclose their name on a whim. At any rate, I don't think courts would accept that a person does not testify without knowing who the person is in such a context. Our courts and our judges are more serious than that in Canada.
There are certainly specific cases to which this might apply and for which section 486.31 will be necessary under the described circumstances. If we repealed the entire subsection, we would deprive ourselves of a tool that might turn out to be important in some cases, but the scope is very limited and limiting.