I agree that there's a radical change, but I don't think the radical change, from our perspective, is in the proportionality situation. That's already built in. The change comes in adding the protection of the public right at the top, so that it's emphasized for a judge right off the bat, and also in the removal of “long-term”, and that's what I referred to back in my submission. Now what we'll be doing is wanting to protect the public in the short term, and the way to do that is to incarcerate more youth, because in the short term that's what to do.
We currently have it as the “long-term protection of the public”, and that's what all of these concepts and the ideas in paragraph 3(1)(a) are based on. Items (i), (ii), and (iii) of paragraph 3(1)(a) and paragraph 3(1)(b) are all there “in order to promote the long-term protection of the public”. So there's been an inversion and a removal of “long-term”, and that's of concern.