I will start by saying I would be absolutely shocked if any member, regardless of party affiliation, was opposed to this particular clause. When you're dealing with a non-Canadian citizen or permanent resident, the primary ground is engaged. The primary ground for detention under 515(10) is whether or not there's any evidence to establish that the accused would not show up for court. Generally, evidence would easily be adduced if the person were a Canadian citizen, ordinarily domiciled in the jurisdiction in which the bail hearing takes place. If the person had a residence, if the person had a job, if the person had other connections to the community, then it would be very easy to discharge that onus, whether it be a Crown onus or a reverse onus.
When you're dealing with a non-Canadian citizen or a permanent resident, I would put that in the same class as a drifter who just happens to find himself, say, in the Ottawa jurisdiction; he's ordinarily domiciled in B.C. and he's hitching his way across this country. The person is not released by a police service, is held for bail and makes application. Absolutely the primary grounds as to whether or not this person would show up for court would be engaged.
It's only logical that we impose a reasonable condition where primary grounds are at stake. We do not want any individuals facing criminal charges in this country to pack their bags and flee this country to avoid criminal responsibility. One way to safely guarantee that this person is going to remain in Canada, not necessarily guarantee their attendance in court but that they remain in this country, is to remove their passport. I circle back. I would be absolutely shocked, dismayed and concerned if any member of this justice committee was not in full support of this amendment.