Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Ms. Davis, the facts you are telling us are truly deplorable, but they are interesting in connection with our work. I note the question of the lack of interpretation services, the idea of unannounced adjournments, which makes no sense, and the breach of conditions, which could result in revocation of parole. The person can make a new parole application two years after the previous one. Maybe that should be extended to five years, depending on the case.
I would like to explore a point with you, about participation at trial. I understand the major inconveniences caused by last-minute adjournments, the problems with interpretation and all that.
During the pandemic, we worked virtually a lot. For example, I am at my constituency office right now, because I could not be in Ottawa. I can participate in the Committee's work virtually. We have access to interpretation services, so the questions I ask in French are interpreted in English, and the answers given in English are interpreted in French. This is an effective service and I will take this opportunity to thank the interpreters.
Do you think that if parole hearings were adapted and allowed for participation by the accused or the inmate applying for parole in person and if they also allowed victims to attend hearings virtually, that would be satisfactory, or not?