Obviously when it comes to whether or not an offence is committed, in hypothetical examples, that's really something that prosecutorial authorities have to decide based on the facts of the cases, because no case in reality quite conforms to a hypothetical example that we can imagine.
I can see that what's behind the notion of informed consent to a certain extent is trying to in another way get at the issue of exploitation. It's another way of saying that the bill itself may be sufficient already in its terms, but I do think that if the committee wants to be more explicit, it could add the concept of exploitation. Obviously, the intent there is that you not take advantage of the source in any way, whether it's through payment, pressure or incentives. The idea is that it has to be truly voluntary. Of course, the classic case is that of somebody in detention, but there are a lot of non-detention cases where we can think of examples where the situation is not truly consensual.
I think that all Parliament can do is set out principles and set out general language. When it comes to specific cases, I think we really have to leave it to the prosecution to try to capture the intent of the legislation.