Mr. Therrien, you're a lawyer, you're a senior counsel, and you talk about protecting the interest of the state. I would suggest to you that part of protecting the interest of the state is protecting the integrity of the system. We know that evidence extracted under torture and evidence given by jailhouse snitches are not very credible. There's no capacity within the system to test that evidence before the justice. Then the whole process becomes tainted and ends up being contrary to the interest of the state.
So I'm going to get back once again to that question. The English system might be no panacea, but it's better than the system we have. Why could we not be proactive? Why do we always have to fight it to the last barricade, as the department has done by going to the Supreme Court? Why can't we be proactive and say we want a system that protects the integrity of the process?