Not only a serious limitation on charter rights, but the purported objective of the bill is to increase efficiencies and reduce delays.
Mr. Doroshenko, you've noted that in terms of the definition of what constitutes “routine” police evidence, it's very broad in scope, covering virtually almost anything.
You noted, Ms. Deshman, that when there isn't agreement with respect to something like an agreed statement of facts, you now could have this leave requirement before the court.
Then, when you go through the bill and look at all the different factors that are to be litigated, how in the world does that increase efficiencies?