Thank you, Chair.
I think the simplest explanation that I can try to reason with here is a statement made by Mr. Hoover in that full disclosure by the crown is mandated by both charter and common law. To not have full disclosure would be detrimental to the crown's case and would obviously give grounds for appeal. So absolutely it would be against the crown's purpose not to have disclosure. In other words, it would have to be an obvious attempt to subvert the course of justice in order to validate Mr. Lee's point. I just don't understand. That does not seem to me to be the manner that justice is carried out in Canada. Our legal people follow the rules of law. Our crowns follow the rules of law.
I understand Mr. Lee's point of view, but to me it's almost overkill in that it is not necessary when it's already mandated through full disclosure by crown through the charter and through common law.