That's already a given, both in everything we know from a psychological or psychiatric standpoint and what our courts have recognized as long as I've practised law, back into the 1970s. If we already have our courts, all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada, recognizing that youth have much greater difficulty understanding causality, are we not at some significant risk of having a contrary interpretation because of putting it in at this part of the act in particular?
If there is that risk—and I suggest to you it is there—what are we hoping to achieve? We understand; both in psychology and in law, we understand. That's long-standing. There's no issue over this, about the causality issue and the understanding of causality by youth. So what are we trying to accomplish with this section?