That's a good answer.
Clause 3 of the bill, which also coincidentally deals with section 3 of the YCJA, is pretty important. In my view, if one reads it, it changes the intent of.... Well, I'm putting the question to you: does it change the intention of what the YCJA is all about?
The existing law says that the YCJA is intended to “prevent crime”, “rehabilitate young persons”, “ensure that a young person” knows the consequences of their actions. The new proposal is that the YCJA “is intended to protect the public by” employing some of these measures. I want to know what was the genesis, the origin, of that thought process, that change.
I'll couple it with the other phrase in section 3 of the act as it exists, which introduces a concept of diminished moral blameworthiness. We on this side, looking at the preamble of the act and looking at the United Nations' youth criminal justice issues, tend to think that this is an act that was put in place, as its predecessors were, to be specific about children. We have introduced in paragraph 3(1)(b) this term that the system “must be separate from that of adults”, and that is remaining, but “must be based on the principle of diminished moral blameworthiness”.
Where did that come from? What does it mean? How will it be applied?