Mr. Chair, when I read CPC‑8, I find it very similar to CPC‑5, which you stated is beyond the scope of the bill. I'm trying to understand why the same reasoning doesn't apply to both amendments.
There are other things that bother me about this.
Clearly, under the Criminal Code, a judge can order the seizure of passports or request the surrender of passports when releasing an individual. Paragraph 501(3)(f) of the Criminal Code already provides for this measure. The idea now is to make it not an option available to the court, but rather an obligation. Instead of being allowed to demand that individuals surrender their passports, the court would be required to do so. That bothers me a bit, because it takes the privilege away from judges, whom we trust, to decide what is appropriate on a case-by-case basis.
I would not agree with that in principle, but, moreover, if CPC‑5 was found to be beyond the scope of the bill, I suspect that CPC‑8 should be, too. If not, then I would question why CPC‑5 was found to be beyond the scope of the bill, because I think the two amendments are very similar.