Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would like to ask Mr. Blois a question.
The proposed subamendment is sort of the equivalent of the two amendments that might be proposed after this one. It's intended to add the same concept.
Mr. Blois may be raising an important point when he says that the two possibilities could make it ambiguous. Having said that, I would like him to explain why he wants to change the original word “could” to “would”. What is the goal?
Remember, I mentioned the danger of placing a huge burden of proof on the complainant. So the current problem would remain.
We heard from many witnesses that we don't need this bill because there are already laws in place that prohibit such acts. Yes, but those laws don't work. The goal is to make it work, and I think we all share that goal.
So I would like Mr. Blois to explain why he wants to change the word “could” to “would”.