I don't know if I would use that term.
As a rule, a law can be considered as falling within Parliament's jurisdiction over criminal law. As I mentioned before, when there's a prohibition accompanied by a sanction, and the prohibition is targeted towards a legitimate public purpose or interest, the criminal law purposes can be to address the public peace and order, security, environmental protection, or health and safety. Those are just examples. They're not the exclusive areas of criminal law.
It's a broad area of jurisdiction, and it has a broad range of legislation that has been enacted under that head of power already. The criminal law is not frozen in time, nor is it confined to a fixed area of activity. The courts have told us over many years that Parliament can respond to new realities, and Parliament has the power to decide what is criminal and what is not, and what new crimes...what is needed to respond to changes in social situations.
The simple assessment that the courts ask Parliament to make is whether there's a reasoned apprehension of harm.
The criminal law part doesn't have to create total and direct prohibitions. It can actually use indirect goals to achieve the criminal law purpose. Again, it can pass purely preventive legislation criminalizing only secondary aspects of activities such as the regulation of tobacco.
We have many examples of criminal law legislation that have contained valid exemptions and the conduct and control of certain activities. The Supreme Court of Canada has told us over many times and in various legislation, whether it's the Food and Drugs Act, the Hazardous Products Act, the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, or the Firearms Act, that these are legitimate regimes, and they can actually be accompanied by very detailed regulations. But that does not make it a non-criminal law. It's still a criminal law. These highly detailed requirements and standards can be set out in the regulations, and that is essentially the regime that you have currently under the Food and Drugs Act.
So this is the type of model legislation that is envisioned under Bill C-11, and it's to establish, as many witnesses have said, a safety and regulatory regime, a safety and security regime to protect the health and safety of Canadians against the risks and harms posed by the use, possession, transfer, disposition, or destruction of human pathogens and toxins. So we believe it's on very solid constitutional grounds.