Well, I respectfully disagree, and I do it on this basis: the legislation, as it is written today, says that you “may” provide that evidence. If you inadvertently or intentionally don't provide that evidence, you haven't erred. You have a choice; you have an option. When someone says you “may” do something, it is very different from when someone says you “shall” do something. It creates a different onus on the part of the person who looks at it. I don't recognize that a human error was made. I don't think this bill seeks to address a human error. Rather, it seeks to remedy an option, and right now the option is made.
I do appreciate the comments that I think Ms. Irving made. These comments addressed the word “shall” coupled with “to prove the fact”. I don't understand the implications of using “the fact” in there, and I would agree that it seems to perhaps create something it shouldn't.
Mr. Cameron, we've heard a lot of discussion about delays, and yet we hear that everybody provides the criminal record at a bail hearing. Still, we're told that if we shall compel people to do it, it's going to create delays. Can you help me understand how this could create a delay if we're already doing it?