First of all, I haven't studied their material at length. I understand the position, I understand the findings in the Nunn inquiry, and we've looked at a number cases. I think the Nunn inquiry in particular was very persuasive to say that there are systems to deal with violent offences.
Wherever you have prolific, violent offences on the part of youth, what we see, particularly in British Columbia, where I'm from, is projects with police targeting prolific repeat young offenders; in these cases, you have stronger law enforcement, community supervision, and, of course, an understanding who the young offenders are, particularly young people committing offences in British Columbia. They're frequently young adolescents who are living out of the parental home; they're children in care, in multiple foster placements; they may not have a stable home; they may be aboriginal children who have experienced a great deal of trauma and abuse in their lives.
We see some great success around projects in which police are promoting public safety and identifying greater stability with young people. We think there are many tools in the act that are being used to deter that crime.
On the issue of some very specific recommendations around pretrial detention, there's a discussion about whether amendments to that part of the Youth Criminal Justice Act are acceptable, if you like, and have evidence supporting them, versus everything else in the act.
At the national council we really haven't taken a position on that question. I know that some of the individual advocates.... In my individual brief I said that I think there are some merits in some of these principles, but it's the overall focus that's of concern to us. There are strategies that can be taken, but taken in the whole, the broader strategy of having a more retributive and deterrence-based system is one that we don't think will get at the circumstances of those offenders.