That is the point. If I can leave the committee with anything, it is that.
You can ask me a hundred questions about what you would do if a violent sexual offender was in the youth system. Well, they shouldn't be there. That's like asking what you would do if a violent sexual offender was enrolled in a grade 2 classroom. Well, I'd get him out. What I wouldn't do is say we should make the grade 2 classroom look more like the penal system where violent offenders should be. I'd say, “No; get him out of the grade 2 classroom.”
It isn't to knock down the doors between the prison and the rehabilitation facility, but to make the right call. In general I would say there is nothing in the current statute that stands in our way. There is very little in the amendments that would stand in our way of getting violent offenders into an adult system where they belong, except that in a rush to add.... Until now it was at least a very clear category, so we had a very high probability of success in front of a judge. By adding this strange language around engaging in risky behaviour or reckless behaviour, we've now given judges more discretion to keep people in the youth system. If the concern is judges who are soft on crime, I would say that with this new expanded language, I would have less certainty of success in getting a violent offender into the adult system.
I don't want to overportray that and I don't think the risk is hugely changed, but certainly you have given judges more discretion to keep them in the youth system, where they shouldn't be.