I want to come back to and echo what Mr. Garrison said. When we change words that have an established concept in our Criminal Code and in Canadian law to words that have a foreign context and don't exist here, there are unintended consequences. I would point out exactly the flaw in amending proposed subsection 696.5(1), as is being proposed in this amendment by Mr. Moore. Further down, in proposed subsection 696.6(2) under “Remedies”, we're coming back to “If the Commission has reasonable grounds to conclude that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred and considers that it is in the interests of justice to do so, it must”, and there's no amendment proposed to change that.
Essentially, we're not going through the whole bill. We're sporadically changing things in one place that are mentioned in other ways in other places, and in the end, we have a bill with sections that don't work together. If, in the end, you're changing the concept once, you have to change it throughout the entire bill, and there are multiple places in the bill where it would have to be changed again.
I want us to consider here that I think the drafters used an established concept in Canadian law, and I'm not entirely sure whether it's less or more restrictive because I have absolutely no idea what a “real possibility” means in Canadian law.
Thanks.