I think that a bit of investment in this particular group of accused could go a long way. If you tie those funds to models that are shown to be effective, you'll have set a standard that courts can attempt to achieve. Why not have performance benchmarking? Why not set targets? Why not develop ideal models, maybe several, that would work in different contexts, different jurisdictions, and different client groups? Women and aboriginal accused, for example, have very different mental health needs than do others.
I think by taking that leadership role, by setting those kinds of standards, whether in policy or tied to funding, you would help encourage everyone to take the next step. That is, to think about what they're doing a little more systemically, a little more coherently. I think that would make it easier for the provinces to then help support these programs as well. If they have some certainty, I think it becomes a lot easier to describe a system that attaches health care to the courthouses. It becomes a lot easier to envision having different kinds of workers providing services right at the courthouse where these clients go. Those kinds of things, I think, can happen.
I also think that with some leadership around best models and tying that to incentives and funding and so forth, you would find a lot of efficiencies, honestly, and you could ensure that the money would be spent as well as it could be.