Thank you, Madam Chair.
I, too, am against the way it's presented. The proposed wording in the bill to which the amendment relates specifies that the court that made an order, or any other court, is required to vary or revoke the order when requested, “unless the court is of the opinion that to do so may affect the privacy interests of any person other than the accused.”
Through amendment G‑7, it is proposed to remove “other than the accused.” This means that the court will make the order and will have to take into account the accused's right to privacy. If a victim says that the order should be modified for this or that reason and the court is of the opinion that this will harm the accused, it will not be able to modify the order.
I agree with what Mr. Garrison was saying. It's true that the text is complex and that you have to take the time to read it carefully. However, if you read it carefully, you realize that amendment G‑7 would have the effect of protecting the accused, to the detriment of the victim. It would give the accused a say in whether or not the publication ban is modified. Again, I think this is counterproductive. I say that with all due respect.