I agree with you on the integrated approach. I think the Quebec example is an excellent example, and there are many others across the country.
The response boils down to the risk. If we categorize folks as low, medium, and high risk, the response should be in accord. The response in relation to an active street gang shouldn't be the same as for those who we can predict are headed to the street gang. If we use risk assessment and an assessment tool at the earliest opportunity, maybe we can stop folks from getting into the street gang. That's a huge opportunity for us.
That said, you are not going to deal with it the same way at the back end. If we look at it from a cradle-to-grave approach based on risk and assessment—in other words, as Thomas said, if we put in the research and the evidence and we focus on the outcomes and the best response in a particular situation based out of a centre of excellence or based on the science—then we are further ahead.
Across the country, for the most part, we do a pretty good job with organized crime. Could we get better? Will we need to keep up? Will we need to enhance that? Absolutely, because it's an evolving world where there are not a lot of rules. They get to change quickly, whereas the police have all the rules on their side and quite frankly don't change as quickly. How do you stop those pre-identified folks? In our case, it was the Joe story when we built it. In Scotland, it was the David story. There are many other examples across this country. How do you do a timeline on an individual when you know where they are actually headed? How do you use the collaborative response—the collaborative agencies, teachers, and social workers—and how do you take that young person out of that environment and give them the help they need based on what they need?
We have a system in Canada that is much like the system everywhere else. Our system is designed to wait for people to get in the system, and then we tell them how to fix them. The reality is that for the majority of those who are headed into our system, we know they are headed there, but we don't offer the olive branch to ask what we can do to help. Most people will choose that right thing, but they are so stuck in environments that they can't get out of.
A lot of it is the marginalized component. We know they are headed there, but as soon as they are there, we say, “Here is the thing you need to do. Here's what you need to do.” I know how I am when somebody tells me what I have to do, and I don't think anybody else is probably any different.
Could we balance that? Yes, 100%, we could balance that.
That said, as Tom and Alok have mentioned, we have to keep our eye on the ball on this side, too, because there are risks to community and business. There are financial risks. It's tied into some of the major businesses that we bring into our country. We have to have a cradle-to-grave response.