Thank you.
Yes, we believe it does, because the bill creates a process that must move forward. In fairness, some of these delays and some of the mischief that the bill is trying to correct are in the gray zone that previously existed, whereby every decision of the CJC in a disciplinary matter could be subject to judicial review, which could be subject to an appeal, which could be subject to further appeal. By streamlining the process, it becomes more fair and it responds to the concerns about the cost of the process because it must move forward.
If a judge is not allowed to sit on the bench while there is a question about his conduct, then you can be assured as a member of the public that this will get addressed and that the judge is not utilizing the process in order to create a situation where they're not working but getting paid, and off they go and continue to proceed down the lateral route.