Mr. Chair, I guess I would say I don't agree that it's an appropriate interpretation. The purpose of laying charges, of course, is the maintenance of discipline. Those have to be dealt with in accordance with law.
What we're really talking about here is a question of jurisdiction. The default position would be that there would be no jurisdiction to try that particular charge by summary trial if it's laid outside the limitation period or if more than one year has expired. In that circumstance, the default position would be that if the charge were to be tried, it would be tried by court martial. This merely preserves an option for the accused, if he or she considers it to be in their best interests, to waive the application of the limitation period.