Mr. Speaker, I am sure the House would like a long dissertation on this subject and I would be happy to provide one. However, I will limit my comments to just a minute or two.
There is a lot of frustration over the length of time it takes a lot of these cases to be dragged through the courts, not just on the criminal side but also on the civil side. When this matter was studied, and it has been studied to death by the Canadian Bar Association, by the trial lawyers association and by various task forces, one of the main recommendations was to change some of the rules of courts to limit the grounds upon which adjournments can be granted and to ensure that there are specific timeframes given within which steps in a case must go forward.
Some of my colleagues who have dealt with the justice system or who are lawyers themselves will know that adjournments are routinely granted for almost any reason. This can happen even though people have taken time off work to appear as witnesses in support of a plaintiff or the accused. All of a sudden, in two seconds, someone stands and says “I am asking for an adjournment” and it is off the docket until another time. This is very frustrating and very inconvenient.
That would be one simple way to bring things forward. There are a number of recommendations along that line. Perhaps I will get to them at another time. I believe that is enough said on the subject, except to add that this is an enormous frustration not only for the constituents who I just spoke about, but for literally thousands and thousands of Canadians who have to deal with the justice system.
If the government were going to be responsive to the wishes of Canadians, then it would do a lot to move in that direction instead of dealing with some of these other matters that we have talked about today.