That's my suggestion, that if there's a concern by the government that the only purpose the preliminary hearing serves is the discovery purpose, then let's give the judges more jurisdiction to do more. I'll give you a practical example; I think I did already.
Let's talk about an evidence such as a statement that was taken while violating the accused's rights. If they had the ability to deal with that at the preliminary hearing, theoretically then the judge would say “Yes, the charter has been breached, and I'm throwing out the statement.” Then that would be it: there would be no more statement. Then the Crown would either have to proceed without the statement, or in cases where the only evidence had been obtained by the breaching of somebody's charter rights, the case would be over because the evidence is gone, and then it's not going to go up to the superior court and take more time when essentially the exact same thing will happen if you take the charter application up to the superior court.