I do, but I think we need to put this in context, and we've done so on page 2 of our submission. As we say there—quoting directly from the Nunn report—we think the protection of the public should be recognized as one of the goals, but not the only primary goal of the act. What troubles us, what concerns us, is the proposal to take out the idea of long-term protection of the public, because we think a prime strength of the act is the way rehabilitation and protection of the public work together.
In other words, the best way to protect the public is to rehabilitate the young person, which in many cases does not involve incarceration, and in fact incarceration may have the opposite effect. It may render the young person more dangerous. So we seek to have that principle put in a context.