Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you all for being here. There's a lot to chew on here, so I'm not sure how much I'm going to get through because you all have interesting things to say.
I will start by saying that nobody wants to see a wrongful conviction. I have sat on both sides of the aisle, as a prosecutor and as a defence lawyer. One thing that still haunts me to this day, as I think I mentioned in the last meeting, was what I thought was a wrongful conviction, even on a relatively minor matter. I think we're all ad idem. The question is how we get the legislation right, so please take my comments as coming from a place of inquiry.
One of the main things...and perhaps, Mr. Le Grand Alary, I'm going to direct my first question to you. You made the distinction between “may do an investigation” and “must do an investigation”. When we're looking at this issue, it's about the likelihood of a miscarriage of justice. The word “may” in law, as we know, is quite permissive. Where I'm going with this is that something “may” have been a miscarriage of justice.
In your eyes, sir, where is that threshold? Sometimes we have “likely was a miscarriage of justice”, “could have been”, “may have been”. Can you explore that with the committee a little bit?