Thank you very much, my colleague.
I guess my question would be for Mr. Gilmour. It's obvious to me that this bill is needed. It's obvious that we are wont to support it. My simple question is on the language issue that we have been dealing with.
It sounds to me as though it doesn't imperil the efficacy or the intent of the bill; it just creates an interpretive issue that the court before which the case may be coming would be able to deal with. It simply would revert to the intent behind the bill, which would be, if it's a suicide attack, to revert to existing law, or if it's a bomb—to me, a bomb is an explosive device, as the simplest way to put it—the court would be able to handle the issue at hand.
Would I be correct in that, or does it place the legislation itself in peril if there were to be an appeal under this particular clause?