Thank you, Chair.
I thank the member for the question.
Since the O'Connor decision that first laid out the groundwork for these types of production applications, guidance from the Supreme Court of Canada has stated that it is highly desirable for the trial judge to be the one to hear this type of application. That's something that over the past 31 years or so—hopefully my math is correct—jurisdictions across the country have strived to achieve. They ensure that the trial judge is the one hearing it. There are a couple of reasons outlined in O'Connor for that. It's mostly to ensure consistency between decisions and to ensure that these are heard at the appropriate time in the process.
In terms of redundancy, what I would speak to is that with respect to NDP-12, the main concern would be that if there is an expansion beyond the trial judge hearing these types of applications, we could open up the door to a greater possibility of inconsistent decisions. One example would be if a justice of the peace who is also considered a justice were to make an order for production at a bail hearing, and months down the line, the trial judge hears or has the evidence before them and disagrees with that assessment.