That is a very important question.
The Jordan case was controversial and imposed exact time limits of 30 months or less. It was a great burden on the courts, and the deployment of judicial resources to criminal matters did begin to delay judicial resources for other types of cases. That was the immediate effect of Jordan, but I wouldn't have recommended it without the COVID-19 pandemic. I'm addressing the use of the notwithstanding clause to overcome it as a temporary measure because of the severe impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Also, of course, as I've indicated in my written paper submitted to the committee, there's no doubt that the court was well intentioned in trying to give real definition to the 11(b) right to trial “within a reasonable time”. That's what courts can and should do. When something unexpected comes up, the Supreme Court of Canada can't reverse itself until a case comes up before it in particular circumstances.
You might well get five of the nine judges in a COVID-19 type of case saying, well, wait a minute, section 1 of the charter says that these rights are subject to reasonable limits prescribed by law, and so on. You might get a different result in a certain fact situation, but how long do we wait for such a case to get all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada?
Judges are not active. They have to wait for a case to come to them, whereas the Parliament of Canada can be proactive. The time is not to sit back and wait for a new precedent that might go a certain way. The time to act is now, to be part of the conversation. That is your right and role as parliamentarians. That is what I think our citizens expect of our parliamentarians. It's a conversation that has to happen and that probably wouldn't have had to happen in non-COVID times and won't have to happen again.
To Monsieur Fortin's point, it doesn't have to be permanent. Jordan can become the law again if this Parliament decides to suspend the effect of it for a period of time. You can actually invoke it for less than five years if that's what you put in the legislation.