I just want to add that I think it's important to recognize--and this picks up on the comments by the member earlier--the need to achieve balance.
One of the reasons Manitoba would support the way it's drafted now, and also the inclusion of deterrence and denunciation, is because we had a fairly notorious case called "the eight ball case". A youth had a billiard ball in a sock, hit an Iraqi immigrant in the back of the head, caused serious injuries, and he was killed.
The person who wielded the eight ball received one day in custody for what was in essence a murder. The rationale was because the Youth Criminal Justice Act didn't specify that deterrence and denunciation was an aspect of sentencing that could be considered, and that was confirmed by the Manitoba Court of Appeal.
I think in the interest of achieving a balance, where you have somebody who commits a very serious offence or an out-of-control youth, you need to have the full range, the full spectrum, the full continuum of options available to the court.
In Manitoba's view, I think this doesn't detract from rehabilitation for the vast majority of young offenders, but for the ones who are serious repeat and out-of-control offenders it's necessary to have the full range available. This type of wording achieves the balance.