I'm going to, but maybe with a bit of a different tack.
First, with page 2, the “diminished moral blameworthiness or culpability”, Ms. Latimer, I must admit, when I read this and read the excerpt from the Supreme Court decision—let me suggest it to you this way—using it in this context is not the same context in which it was used in the Supreme Court of Canada decision. In using it in this context in this section of the act, is it not an attempt on the part of the government to really reduce the significance of that decision and open the door, maybe by a crack, but open the door to the youth justice system, move it closer to the adult criminal justice system by allowing interpretation of this section to introduce the concept of deterrence, general deterrence as opposed to specific? I see it doing that, at least as a potential interpretation, once this matter is interpreted by the courts.
Is there a risk there, at the very least?