You know, the investigation and presentation of evidence in a criminal context is a very complex and challenging environment, and....
No, I haven't. I haven't had any sort of statutory impediment.
What I want to say, and what I'm dancing around, is this. Let me use this recent peace bond example from Montreal. It was widely reported that a young man was brought before the courts to be placed on a peace bond. A peace bond is the lowest of state interventions in a person's freedom, and it has to be done on a demonstrable, articulable basis: the fear that he is going to do something bad.
To make my point quickly, we presented our case. We had the Attorney General's consent to do that. We brought him in to court and it was dismissed, put off for a month. In this environment, with the framework that I am managing, thinking that we are going to mitigate the threat that we say this individual poses by having him subject to a peace bond, we don't have that peace bond. There's a month before we decide whether there is a peace bond. What are we doing for a month on this guy? If he does something that we're afraid of, who's going to hold that can? That's going to be me.
My point is that while the legislation, and the proposed legislation, is adequate, and the proposed legislation would be helpful, I think we need to rethink in this country how we manage the courts, frankly.