I want to ask Justice Nunn to follow up on Mr. Woodworth's point. The act itself says, in the declaration of principle, which is to be “liberally construed”—there is no partisanship here, it is right in the act--in subsection 3(1): “The following principles apply in this Act”. There are a lot of layers there in the declaration of principle to be liberally construed. Then the following principles apply. The youth criminal justice system is intended to prevent crime, rehabilitate young persons, and make young people appreciate the meaningful consequences of their actions “in order to promote long-term protection of the public”. You've studied that. You understand how that might be interpreted by judges.
The proposed legislation says that this is all to be replaced. There is no wording about the act being liberally construed or conservatively construed or whatever, but it starts right off by saying “ the youth criminal justice system is intended to protect the public”. It is not intended to prevent crime or rehabilitate. It's quite different. Then it talks about “intended to protect the public” by holding persons accountable, promoting rehabilitation, and supporting prevention of crime.
Mr. Woodworth would suggest that other than the omission of the long term, they are exactly the same. I'm sorry, I find them incredibly different. I'm only a lawyer of 25 years. You're a judge of many years and a lawyer of many more years. I don't want to lay the age thing on you, but you're the sage of Cape Breton here. Could you please tell me, in your opinion, whether those are exactly the same, as Mr. Woodworth would have us believe?