Thanks to all of you. This has been fabulous.
I want to start with Professor Myers and Ms. Yamagishi. I think you said things that overlap.
Ms. Yamagishi pointed out properly that release on an undertaking is available right now. Professor Myers said you should start with the premise of release. That's supposed to be already what we do. R. v. Antic only tells us and codifies, as you say, the status quo. The courts have made it clear, and now we put it in the legislation and pretend we've done something. You said we should structure the discretion of the judges and police and so forth, but how do we do that? Do you have suggestions as to how we can do that? It seems to me it's already supposed to be that way. The witnesses who you all agreed with, Professors Doob and Webster and Sprott, all said that we need, in their words, transformative changes, and yet we tinker. Why would we do that? It seems as though all we're doing is futile law reform, based on that testimony.
I'm asking both of you that question. How do we fix it?