Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to thank the witnesses for giving us their testimony.
First, I want to say to Mr. Penner and his family, to the Wambacks and their family, on behalf of the Liberals and probably all committee members, we understand--we can see it in your faces--that this is extremely painful for you. You have lived the nightmare of victimization. We understand that, and we feel for you on that.
What we're trying to do here is improve the law with respect to youth criminal justice. Over many hearings, listening to many witnesses, we seem to be grappling with the fact that the act itself just prescribes what the offences are and what the penalties will be. It doesn't at all address--that's not the way we do laws, and it's wrong--what kind of treatment, what kind of success or benchmarking there is on the treatment or rehabilitation or counselling that these people, the very worst offenders, should receive when incarcerated or when under supervision. That's an obvious gap that goes a long way to explaining how the law itself, whatever we do with it, is not going to answer the question. I think we all know that.
I am very interested, Mr. Wamback, in what you said about three years and how the experts you have consulted say that's sort of a benchmark or a period at which clinical intervention works. We heard evidence just this week from another victim of this type of crime, who also mentioned the three-year period. Whether it's incarcerated clinical intervention or supervised clinical intervention, I'm interested in what your experts told you about that. If you had further material, we could probably get the clerk to receive it from you.
Just briefly, because I do want to get back to my St. Thomas friend on other issues, could you tell me what you meant by that?