 Thank you very much. Thanks for inviting me, and if I can just comment on a few things that was said. Marshal, I'm new at this. And most of my father was a Monterian Tsar, and I'm sitting here listening to all of you and thinking, maybe I should just walk out, because I don't know what I'm going to do with that, but I'm going to try. And I just want to say I'm here because my colleague, Senator White, could not be, and now I wish I hadn't agreed, but I will deal with him later. It's the truth, Judge. When you spoke about culture, I would have to remind that in my previous life, I tried very hard to get judges to understand, especially within the South Asian community, the challenges of cultural norms. And I was always told, no, no, no, you can't influence us. We will make up our own minds, and so this is a great step, and I congratulate you, and I hope other jurisdictions are also looking at this. And I want to start off, you know, in my remarks, and I kept saying, yeah, but without resources, we cannot do this, but without resources, we cannot do it. And, you know, when we came to health care, and saw the great things you were doing, and I may be wrong, but we saw some other things in other provinces, it is just an add-on, you may have some resources, but in other provinces. So it's just like, especially resources of psychology, psychiatrists, doctors, others. It's just more working room without really, if you're going to have restorative justice, we're really going to have a process. Us, parliamentarians, have to make sure that there are resources, and so it's great to have all these programs, but, you know, in my, I could keep saying that there are, haven't been any resources provided, so I think that when you talk about looking after the 90%, I'm not so sure, and I think some people need to have that. I know that I see some justice colleagues here, or some justice people here, who may say that I'm wrong, but I don't think that the 90% has come to 90% in resources, and I think we're still expecting the community to carry that burden, and that can just lead to different notice. So I want to start now my remarks, and I want to thank you. It's a real honor to be here for me, and Jennifer said to me, I would have something to add, so I'm here, and if I'm not adding anything to this discussion, it's Jennifer's fault. In our ways to find out about delays of court, one of the main things we heard is that the justice system is broken. Well, that's not the thing new to you, but, you know, it was, and it wasn't new to us either. When we started this study, I was the vice chair of the constitutional committee, and I was keen to do this study, because one of the things that really bothers me is that in the previous, and I'm not trying to wear my liberal hat, but in the previous number of years that we have, we did a lot of mandatory sentencing, and with mandatory sentencing comes a lot of extra costs, and I was concerned how it was, how was it leading to more delays, how was it making it more difficult for prosecutors, defense counsel, and judges to do their jobs, and then of course we've had the Jordan decision, which I'm sure most of you know, it's a decision that we cannot have unreasonable delays. So the committee undertook, it started its work in January 26th, and we took on a study on matters pertaining to delays in Canada's criminal justice system and to review the roles of government of Canada and parliament in addressing such delays, and we have an interim report, obviously I cannot go through it with you today, but I have brought some copies, and of course we have some online, and one of the things that we were not looking at restorative justice, that's not what we were looking at, we were looking at the 10%, but it has led us to look at alternative ways of looking at alternative ways to deal with the issue of trial delays. We heard from many people, we heard from all across the country, we heard from people that the system is overburdened, a system that is losing, not gaining ground, a justice system that cannot keep up, a system that is becoming more backlogged, a system that finds overrepresented groups, a system that is primarily housing those with mental illness or addiction in a system in need of repair, and I'm sure you've always all heard this, that Mr. Sack was the honest man of correction, or was, has also said to our legal community that we have more people with mental health issues in prisons than we have in hospitals, and how can that be correct? How can that be our Canada? A Canada that we value people, a Canada that we take so much pride, how can that be possible? So in the report we have four recommendations, it's an interim report, and I want to say here to the Chief Judge, Chief Judge, you led the way. She spoke to us publicly, which is not done very often, and since she spoke publicly, some colleagues may speak publicly to the committee, and that's really important with her, she speaks to us publicly, we can support her, she speaks to us privately, it's a private conversation, so she took some great risks for doing that, and we thank you for that. And I said to Judge Grant to treat you as my judge in my province, that many wish it for us. So the four recommendations we have is about case law management, judicial appointments, technology, and restorative justice. And when we started looking at this study, we really were wanting to see how what solutions can be suggested, what can be suggested. Maybe a point that's of more judges, maybe resources, and yes, maybe that too, but it has to be more than that. It's how we look after the 90%. So we have looked at sparsal violence courts, mental health courts, Aboriginal courts, drug courts, and I'm not going to say a poverty court, and they're great courts, but you know what came up, one of my other, our chair kept asking, he's done an answer and kept asking this question, but this delays the process. It doesn't make the process any shorter, because as you can understand, to work with, in special alternative ways, it delays the process, but I kept saying to him, but then you won't see them again. So it really hastens the process. Later, we deal with the person, and that's something us politicians and in the judicial system have to realize is when will we deal with the person, rather than the number. One thing that I would like to say to you is that that's the challenge, is how do we deal with the person, and I can go on, I have lots to say on this, but what has already been said is, we cannot look at all people being treated alike. We can't have a cookie-cut approach. When we went to Judge Williams Court, she made it so clear to us that, every person that came in front of us, was first the human being that needed to be looked after. And that's not what the justice system is about, but the way we set it up. So we have to have a complete mind change, and by respectfully saying to you that the next conference you have, you should have half of the people that know have your knowledge, and half of us, to give us the knowledge. So together, we can look at how we look after the 90%, because until we, the people who don't understand these systems, do not know how to pass laws, to provide resources for the 90%, we will always be doing this from the side of our table. Now, I have run out of my time, so I want to say there's something that Judge Williams said, and we have somebody so relevant from the federal ombudsman for victims of crime. I think she must get tired of coming to our community, because every time she comes to our community shop, she speaks about the rights of victims, rights of victims, and I want to leave this one story. One incident that haunts me is that, when there is a court delay, at the end of it, when that case is taken, or where the person, the victim, has forgotten the facts, we are re-victimizing the victim, and that's why court is wrong, and that is why we need alternate processes. But to us politicians, those alternate processes will only work if we provide resources for the 90%. And I will certainly take that message back, and I want to finish by saying that I've just come back from Sri Lanka last night, I was mad at the work on the issues of extremism, and everywhere I went, people talked about, I don't know how they know this, because I didn't know this before, about what you all do here, and also of truth and reconciliation. You know, I had so many women from all over the Muslim world were saying, how do we do truth and reconciliation? How do we do what you all just did in the state, in Canada? In Canada, how do you do this? And I was so amazed that people look or watch what we do, and so I'm saying to you what you do here, people, not just in Canada, are more benefit, but outside benefit. So let me tell you that. Jennifer Loone's paper from Restorative Process, talking about truth and reconciliation. So I'm hopeful for you. All I would like you all to look at also, how do we then go to peace agreements? How do we look at then using the storage process for peace agreements? Because it's so important that we put all of those together, because we are a small world. And when I was listening to this morning's presenters, and when I was preparing on the plane, I was thinking, you know, at the moment the core process is a scissors. We truly cut off people's lives. And then we do not worry because our job is done. And then we leave them in society. What each and every one of you are doing, you are needles, you are sewing our society up, you're trying to make our society more cohesive. And I salute you for this, especially at a time when let's not kill ourselves, what's happening in the South is not only happening in the South. I'm almost a woman. I could take a lot of stories of what's happening in here, in Canada too at the moment. Our societies are hurting. And as just where I said, there is a reason for that. We have to look at what we are doing. Us politicians and the justice system cuts our societies and then wonders why we are having the problem. I salute you because you saw our societies trying to keep us all, trying to keep us all. Thank you very much.