With the greatest respect, I don't think they add anything to the existing system that we have. If an accused person has failed to appear, then immediately there's going to be a problem on the primary ground. In other words, if I've been charged with a criminal offence, the court wants to know that I'm going to show up. So that's the first thing. Is he going to show up? Does he have roots in the community? That may lead to some restrictions.
The fact that an accused has failed to appear in court on one or more occasions when required to do so doesn't say the accused has been convicted of a criminal offence; it says the accused has failed to appear. It's too broad. There are lots of reasons that people may fail to appear. That's not what we're concerned about here. If the person has a record of failing to appear, and that record is not excusable because of vulnerabilities, then that person fails on the primary ground. But that's vague; it doesn't add anything.
It is of concern if the accused has failed, but it doesn't say they've been convicted. The fact that the accused has previously been convicted of a criminal offence he has been charged with, or is awaiting trial for a criminal offence, is already there. That's the secondary ground. The secondary ground is, if we let this person out, is he going to interfere with the administration of justice, such as interfering with witnesses? Does he have a history of the revolving door? It's already covered in the Criminal Code.
It doesn't add to what we have, and it—