I have a different approach, but I agree that we need to examine the circumstances in cases where charges are thrown out before the court has a chance to rule on them.
The bill has two strategies. The first deals with the problem of delays in general. The decisions in Jordan and other cases have complicated the problem, and it's had consequences. However, court delays have the effect of denying victims justice in our society, and we have put forward new rules to reduce delays and remedy that.
That will address the underlying problem of delay.
Separately, we're also trying to deal with the consequence not only by calculating time in a particular way or by excluding certain applications but also by directing the court to consider remedies other than a stay. I prefer this approach to using section 33. I think it is cleaner and has an opportunity to address the situation.
If the committee has an opportunity to engage on the best way to address the delay issue, I would welcome your feedback, and the feedback of those in the Senate who may be watching. I really believe in the process of Parliament and would welcome testimony, supported by expert witnesses, as to the best way to address delays, but the approach laid out in Bill C-16 is my preferred strategy.