That would be one way of doing it, setting up some legislation around that at the federal level. You may hear from provinces that they don't prefer that approach. I think there's a lot of scope for the federal government to exercise leadership in conversations, and in discussions and negotiations with the provinces, from one attorney general to another, and from one minister of justice to another, to try to come up with, for example, national standards and these kinds of things. We've seen that in other areas of shared jurisdiction in which routes other than legislation were used. Certainly we wouldn't object if a legislative route were to be used and if the money were to be specifically tied, but neither would we object to a well-functioning system in which the federal government used its suasion and its spending power to show some leadership in this area of shared jurisdiction.
Obviously there are questions regarding the division of powers, but fundamentally, there's only one Canadian facing the courts. Governments need to work together to make sure that in the different parts of the country they get the services they need, in sensitive ways that may vary from one part of the country to another, and with particular attention paid to the special needs of particular groups such as those Mr. Fritsch has mentioned, as well as indigenous peoples and others.
The difficulty with any exercise of national benchmarking, whether it's done informally or whether it's done through legislation, is coming up with one-size-fits-all types of approaches. We fully recognize that can be a difficult exercise, but we think it's possible to do it in a way that achieves some national-level leadership. They've tried that in Australia, and we will see over time whether it's successful or not.