Welcome, Your Honour.
We would have liked to chat with you for much longer. Unfortunately, we will have to hold off on many of the questions that we would have wanted to ask you.
I practiced criminal law for 25 years before getting into politics, in 1993. I practiced in Montreal and I knew Judge Lamer very well. I had for him, first when he was a lawyer, and then when he became a judge, immense respect.
As a young lawyer, I was already scandalized by the number of witnesses that we pointlessly subpoenaed before the court. In drug cases, for example, to establish that drugs were found in the accused's residence, we had the caretaker appear as a witness, etc. At the time, I made a suggestion, but it is so long ago that I no longer remember in what journal it was published. The idea was to create a process consisting in issuing a notice to the other party in order for it to recognize those facts which are never contested, for example the fact the accused lives at the address where the drugs were found. There was also continuity in the possession of an article that the police officer eventually handed over to a laboratory and that was then returned. As a matter of fact, in English, we had called that a notice to admit. As far as I know, this is in place nowhere. We nevertheless continue to call witnesses to provide evidence that is purely technical in nature. However, in their minds, that completely discredits the administration of justice.