It's a good point. At this bill's introduction, I realized that there would be that interesting challenge right away: why this group and why not another group; how do you provide, dare I say, benefits of the judicial system and discretionary approach to one group and not another; and then, how do you sort that out?
That certainly was in part the motivation, because what we want to provide with the legislation we're putting forward is obviously what is going to be fair and equal to all groups, as best we can manage.
Some other conditions were raised. You raise a couple that are very poignant, and a couple of others were raised. I was able to offset those by saying that in all reality our correctional facilities aren't chock full of people with Down's syndrome or autism, as an example, but they are of people with FASD. But equally, there are other neurological development disorders, other mental disorders, other mental health issues that warrant some broader level of consideration, and I think you can engage in that as a committee.
Just to tie back into some of the discussion that has come up, there still is a mechanism today for courts to use judicial discretion. They can deploy it at this point; it's not as though they can't do it. I was trying to tighten it up a little bit to make it a little sounder, for lack of a better word, in law. But I'm very much excited about this broadened discussion, because I think we're going to be able to benefit the community far more largely than I ever anticipated when I started this bill.