I'm not so sure it's so much an equality issue, Monsieur Petit, as it is a fairness issue. You're quite correct that for people who have a record of violating bail, or who, because of their criminal record, are not achieving bail, we are treating them slightly differently. We're saying that the discretion that is allowed and provided for in this bill is not open to them. I think most people can understand that. You shouldn't get any benefit for being detained if there are legitimate reasons for you not to make bail.
That being said, we give guidelines. We still provide some discretion, as you can see. In my deliberations with provincial attorneys general and in hearing from Canadians, there were some who asked why we didn't just make the rules standard one and a half to one. There were some who said to just make it one to one. You have a bit of a combination of both. The general rule is one to one, but where a judge wants to make a finding and wants to give reasons, that discretion is open to them. That too, I think, is appropriate.
There's a number of things that could happen to an individual. You could have somebody, for instance, who has language problems, who doesn't speak either of the two official languages, so that is a reason for a delay in getting them before the court. You could see in a case like that where an individual may ask to avail themselves of the discretion the judge has in terms of a one and a half credit, because it's through no fault of their own that the matter has been delayed or that it's been problematic to bring it before the courts. We do give that discretion. I think that's appropriate and I think that's been well received as well.