This also dovetails back to Mr. Murphy's question, so I want to make sure I answer both of them at the same time, because I think they're similar.
Right now there's a nice balance that is struck. If a young person, for example, commits a very violent crime, and is out on the lam, so to speak, and there's a real risk to the public because this person is armed and dangerous, or potentially a risk to the public, then there's a discretion. The crown attorney and the police apply for an order, they lift the publication ban, it's very tightly monitored in terms of how long the publication ban can be lifted for, it hits the newswires, they end up catching the person--and usually when they're young people they're not going very far, because they have a very small circle to go in--and then the ban is removed. If after, for example, 24 hours, which is when the order would be enforced, they haven't found the young person by that point, they go back to court, it's judicially supervised, and there's a request made to extend that order, and that's exactly what's done.
So those are the kinds of circumstances right now where it works, and I think it probably works quite well.
The issue with broadening the publication ban—and this is to Mr. Murphy a little bit too, and I think you know the witness over here had a lot of interesting things to say from a very first-hand perspective—is right now the YCJA is about rehabilitation and reintegration, and what we heard is if you lift the ban what you do is you inhibit the ability of a young person to reintegrate. So what you're doing, in a sense, by lifting a ban is you're undercutting one of the primary driving principles of the YCJA, and I think that's a fundamental concern.