Thank you, Chair, and thank you to our witness for joining us today.
I want you to elaborate on a couple of things you mentioned that I certainly agree with.
You had mentioned focusing on the few that are the problem. That was something we heard in testimony on other bills that we've had before the House, from experts, community leaders, and the police, that oftentimes it may be a widespread problem, but those that are committing these crimes are a small group. Even in areas where there's a much higher than average crime rate, it's still being perpetrated by relatively few citizens, and when people have focused on them with appropriate programs, treatment, and in many cases, including taking people off the street, they've seen a marked decrease in the crime in that community. So I'd like you to comment a bit on that, whether our focus has to be those who are most at risk and those who are causing the greatest deal of the problem, with a very sharp focus on those people.
As well, you mentioned the acceptance in some communities of those who are involved in organized crime. I want you to comment on this, if you think it's true. There's the sense that in many of our communities there may be an acceptance, just because it hasn't an impact on a person personally or isn't on their conscience. While police are very aware of the problem in the community, the public is not engaged until there's a sensational case, until there's something that either has an impact on them or on someone they care about, whether they know the person or not. Then there's a public sense of vulnerability or outrage, or a combination of those things, and the public starts to engage on the issue.
How important do you feel it is that we maintain a focus on these groups even when that public outrage perhaps dies down? How important do you think the public engagement is on coming to a solution? It's obviously not something we can just do by ourselves.
Could you comment on those couple of things?