In brief, that's my assessment of that one.
On the civil forfeiture issue, this is something we've had a problem with for quite some time. It is, as you've mentioned, the lower standard of proof, the balance of probabilities. We were involved in the Chatterjee case, which went up to the Supreme Court of Canada, where they did endorse the Ontario legislation and found it to be constitutional. But in our view, the standard of balance of probabilities is too low for what is effectively something comparable to a criminal sanction to be taken against a person.
When you're dealing with potentially taking enormous sums of money from somebody or enormous sums of property, in our view there needs to be something higher demonstrated than simply a balance of probabilities case that those are in fact the proceeds of crime.
Number three, since I am proceeding very quickly here, is Bill C-4. We have another chance to thoroughly vet and review the provisions of Bill C-4. Our general position is that youth are less culpable for their crimes than adults--that's a rule that courts have generally accepted--and they need to be treated differently in the justice system.
In terms of how Bill C-4 does or doesn't do that, I'm not in a position to comment completely. I know it has raised the issue of greater reporting of names and that type of thing. I'm not sure exactly what that would advance, but I'd want to take a closer look at the legislation and see exactly what's being proposed.