It's interesting, because it's obviously not your case, but the issue of literacy was raised. It reminds me of some of the issues we face with the CRA, when you get a letter and you have to flip through two or three pages and you're still left there. I'm an MP and sometimes if they say they want to audit a charitable donation I made or whatever, it's innocuous, but you read the letter and you think this could have been so much shorter just to tell me something that's way more straightforward than they're making it sound. You're reading that letter and it's almost as if you have to read three sentences before you understand that it was turned down and what the recourse is.
In doing the X exercise, you mentioned the age of social media. This is probably beyond the scope of this study and our committee's work. It's probably something more for the justice committee, but I'm wondering, and you alluded also to mental health treatment. It's probably particularly pertinent for those who don't serve any time but do get criminal records and would probably benefit from that.
Would it be worth looking at two things? First, I know we want maximum transparency for the public but it would be revisiting publication bans and how that works with regard to criminal records in the age of social media. I know it's not for us, but for another committee I think the question is worthwhile. Second, whether this should be more robust. How can I put it? I don't want to say “prescribing”, but it would be implementing mental health services for those who don't necessarily get time served but who are given a criminal record of some kind through the justice system.
I'll start with you, since you raised the issues, but hearing from the others with any time I have remaining would be great.