Okay, I understand.
I'm going to move on to a third topic.
Please excuse me if I'm moving quickly but, like my colleague, I'm trying to take advantage of your legal expertise.
I was talking to you about time limits and the Jordan decision, specifically about trials that are abandoned because there isn't enough time to hold them within a reasonable time frame. I believe the time limits set by the Supreme Court of Canada—that is, 18 months for provincial courts or the Court of Québec and 30 months for superior courts—seem reasonable to me. However, we are unable to meet them for all sorts of reasons we won't go into today.
Bill C‑16 proposes certain provisions to revise how time limits are calculated and to allow courts, in certain cases, to impose consequences other than dismissing the case.
I'd like to hear your opinion on this. Is this a good idea or not?
Before you give me your opinion, I'd like to clarify something now, because I may not have time to do so later. We're often told that if we give courts too much leeway to deviate from the 18-month and 30-month deadlines, we could send a signal that the deadlines are less important and create a situation where courts will be more likely to let the deadlines lapse.
What are your thoughts on this issue?