We don't support the amendment. The availability of resources and support to mitigate the risk can be considered by the court without explicitly setting it out. The provision is currently open-ended. The evidentiary burden in the high-risk accused application process falls to the crown. The nature of the evidence suggests it would likely only be available to the defence; otherwise, the crown would have to prove a negative, for example, no resources.
As introduced, there is nothing in BillC-54 that would prevent the court from receiving evidence on the availability of resources and support to mitigate the risk of public safety. An amendment to that effect is not necessary.