I believe Justice Arbour in her minority decision stated that the section was too vague, that it should be unconstitutional because of vagueness. After reading that and reading the majority judgment, I would tend to agree that this section does not give us clarity on what can and cannot be done.
Mr. Julian, would you be averse if, for example, those who believe there needs to be some clarity to replace this section—but not with a defence like section 43—provided some kind of amendment to the bill?