Let's look at paragraph 518(1)(c) of the Criminal Code and its proposed replacement subparagraphs, starting with:
(iv) to show the circumstances of the alleged offence, particularly as they relate to the probability of conviction of the accused,
That's nothing new in some respects, but if you're putting it in there, what does it do? Does that mean that crown counsel has to make sure that they have more evidence to put to a justice of the peace? Then it becomes almost a trial as opposed to.... We, the system, just cannot afford that. We are concerned right now about time and pressure in the system.
Right now, one of the factors that is taken into consideration on the tertiary ground is the strength of the crown's case. If you're going to mandate that the crown has to produce that evidence, what does that mean? It's not available yet. The police have not done it. What you get at a bail hearing is a synopsis because the file isn't ready. What you're doing here is introducing a potential step that is absolutely impossible with the resources we have and will add to the problem of the Jordan decision. That's one thing. Another is:
(i) to prove the fact that the accused has previously been convicted of a criminal offence,
Obviously, that's a secondary ground. Moreover, there's the following:
(ii) to prove the fact that the accused has been charged with and is awaiting trial for another criminal offence,
In an indictable offence, it's a reverse onus. Finally, there is:
(iii) to prove the fact that the accused has previously committed an offence under section 145,
Those are the administration of justice offences. With respect, I would suggest that every police officer, every judge, every defence counsel, every crown counsel in this country would say that we have a real problem with the administration of justice offences in the criminal system being prosecuted and loading up the remand. This, as I read it—