Thank you, Chair, and thank you to the witnesses.
I didn't think I was going to get a round, so this is an honour.
You obviously know my background. I'm not going to mention my background, because whenever I mention my background, I get my colleague Mr. Naqvi, who was my former boss, chiming in and adding his editorial.
I can inform you, sir and ma'am, that I come at this study with a completely different lens and a different perspective. Unlike my colleague and another prosecutor, Mr. Caputo, I spent a substantial amount of time—15 to 20 years—in bail court on a regular basis.
I want to know whether or not you agree with my assessment.
Prior to the release of Antic.... I don't know. Maybe the two of you weren't even lawyers at that point yet. I've been around for a long time. Prior to Antic, there was a general consensus that the overall pendulum with respect to serving the needs of the public, protecting the public and highlighting the protections under the charter for the accused was not balanced and that far too many people were being detained for really minor offences. There was a lack of focus in prosecutors around this country to argue for detention only on those serious cases that posed a risk, not only to a community's safety, but to that of the victim.
Antic tried to reinforce that the pendulum had shifted too far to the protection of society and the public. In my view, it moved that pendulum a little closer to the rights of the accused.
We then had Bill C-75, and we had another Supreme Court of Canada decision in Zora that reinforced those principles. Now we're left with this perception that the public has that this system we call the criminal justice system is not in balance.
Is that the theme? Is that a focus that you are hearing? Are you reading studies about this, and hearing experts and stakeholders talk about this? Is it a concern at the Department of Justice?