I think we strike a very good balance. That's not to say that the system is perfect. Striving for a perfect bail system has resulted in what we found in Ontario. I saw Mr. Naqvi here. When he was attorney general, he launched a number of studies and found that when we're too risk averse and strive for perfection, we end up detaining people inappropriately. That can lead to, as I've described, some bad consequences.
It's not that the system will ever be perfect. People will breach while on release, but we have to do our best to try to mitigate that. Part of that is making sure the police allocate their resources properly to do compliance checks. Part of that is making sure we have good bail supervision and other programs.
I can assure you that for serious offences, the courts balance—it's a secondary factor—the security and safety of the public. They look at an individual's record. They look at the history of non-compliance. They look at a plan. Sureties are cross-examined. Hard questions are asked. This balancing is done. If it is not done properly, then there's always the ability for the Crown to appeal that.
We have this balance that takes in all those factors, looking at the specifics of the allegations and the specifics of the individual. It's really when you try to strive for perfection, when you look at examples and don't necessarily, in an intellectually honest way.... Look, if the solutions you're proposing had actually affected that particular example that you look at, it's then that we get into problems of really eroding the fundamental purposes of bail and how it interacts with the protections that we have under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.