I was actually expecting you to refer to the comments you received from various quarters, in a province that is probably isolated. However, when I look at the entire document and the summary done by the people who accompanied you in the ministerial consultations, I get a different picture. At page 3, for example, they say:
The restorative justice approach is seen as a very positive element along with extrajudicial measures. Despite the fact that the legislation is considered very complex, it was referred to as being “as good as it is going to get”; “a damn good piece of legislation.”
Jurisdictions agreed there could be some minor “tweaking” of the YCJA, but the flaws are in the system, not the legislation. The YCJA itself is not the challenge; it is the dialogue that happens in the public. The public perception of public safety, whether real or perceived, will not change with amendments to the YCJA. Changing the YCJA will not change behaviour. If changes must be made to the YCJA, they should only be made slowly and as a result of a more comprehensive review.
I could continue reading pages as they have been submitted to us here. You are justifying this bill based on the consultations you conducted on the street, where people told you how bad the law is. But the report specifically states that it is misunderstood because the public is poorly informed.
What are you doing to better inform the public? Why aren't you moving slowly...