Yes. Bill C-75 implemented a number of changes, not only to the bail regime but to many other aspects of the criminal justice section. We made extensive submissions on this. We supported many of the amendments on the bail regime. We felt that they would lead to more expedient hearings, while still being consistent with the existing case law and constitutional concerns.
For example, we supported the codification of the restraint principle—the ladder principle—which was already codified in the Criminal Code, as well as section 493.1, which directs the judicial officer to give primary consideration to releasing the person at the earliest reasonable opportunity and with the least onerous conditions appropriate in the circumstances. I'm referring again to the restraint and to the ladder principles.
Section 493.2 required consideration of the overrepresentation of indigenous people on trial, as well as other vulnerable populations that have been overrepresented and disadvantaged in the criminal justice system.
We also supported changes that would explicitly discourage the use of cash deposits and sureties. That's based on many judgments and reports over the years that have commented on the overreliance on surety bail as a form of release.
We also supported the diversionary mechanisms, including judicial referral hearings. I should note, just based on my own experience, that I don't think we have seen that used as much as it could have been.
We also supported, in particular, the expansion of police powers, which would allow police to release an accused on arrest. This would reduce overall the number of bail hearings and, hopefully, the number of people in detention and custody.
We also noted that Bill C-75 made it a bit more difficult for people charged with domestic violence-related incidents who already had a record for such violent offences. That was something we made submissions on as well.
That was the overall import of the changes to the bail regime as a result of Bill C-75.