I admit that I do like the idea of tightening the rules first and finding a way to calculate the time limits to avoid, if possible, trials collapsing, especially in the most serious cases.
The fact remains that it won't be possible to keep that from happening in some cases. Holding a trial within a reasonable time frame is in the interest of not only the victim, but also the accused. If the person is innocent and has to wait five years to be found innocent, that is unacceptable. If the person is guilty and it takes five years for them to be sentenced, that is unacceptable to the victim, and it also affects how the length of the sentence is calculated. No one wins, and delays are costly.
With that in mind, I ask you this again: In an extreme case, when there is no possible way to hold a trial within a reasonable time frame or to calculate the time frame such that it would be considered reasonable, shouldn't we make an exception and choose the lesser of two evils? While a case like that might not come up but once every two years, it could prevent a woman from being murdered by her new partner or a rapist from killing the woman next door.
Minister, in those extreme cases where it's not possible to hold a trial within a reasonable time frame, isn't it appropriate to invoke section 33 to override the charter provisions so that the accused still stands trial?