Mr. McCarthy, just quickly, as I have only two minutes left.
I understand the principle of the discussion you wanted to launch in order to do away with the time frames imposed by the Jordan decision during the crisis.
I also understand my colleague Mr. Virani's arguments, which are correct. Some provisions make it possible to deviate from it, in exceptional circumstances.
That said, Mr. McCarthy, would you not agree with me that the issue with unreasonable time frames, when it comes to the administration of evidence, did not start a year or two ago? That was a problem well before the Jordan decision. Issues with time frames are very old news. They go back years, even decades.
Don't you think it would be time to consider a different way to hold trials?
For example, plea bargaining is often talked about. Is there a way, even in civilian matters, to make a mediation stage mandatory, so that people would have to talk to each other before the court sets a trial date?
Couldn't the appointment of new judges help increase the number of hearings and eliminate or mitigate this issue of unreasonable time frames?
I would like to get your opinion quickly, as I am being told that I have one minute left.
In your opinion, aside from the Jordan ruling being suspended, could other measures be implemented to resolve this issue?