It's already happening now. We've heard from witnesses, and I've gone back to the riding. I've spoken to police officers, and I've spoken to crowns. Putting the record in front of someone happens automatically. There are going to be instances, and we've seen it, and we've heard from the crowns who have testified. That's what they're trained to do. You even mentioned it—that's the first thing you do. I'm sure when you were a crown, the first thing you did was ensure that this document got up to the bench. Every judge wants to avoid what happened here, because the judge is the one who ultimately decides who's going on bail, so they want all the information before them.
Even if it's in the Criminal Code, you have to realize that it's a thick book. The judge can forget; the crown can forget. The defence counsel would be under no obligation to submit that record. This can happen, and changing this law cannot alter that. It will happen even if we change the law. If that's the case, what's your concern about the issues of delay? We've heard all kinds of evidence, which you seem to have sidestepped during your testimony. The possibility of delay, the unconstitutionality of this bill, the mess it could create for five to seven years until the Supreme Court decides—is all that worth the symbolism when we can't necessarily guarantee that human error won't occur again?