Thank you very much.
Mr. Chair, you mentioned the job of the chair is the scorekeeper. We obviously have a very ambitious clerk. Get yourself elected.
I think we're creating artificial distinctions between the question of whether there's a broad problem or whether it should be only health and safety or those kinds of things. It occurs to me that these are compounding offences.
Consequently, if you steal somebody's idea, then that's a line of a defence. It's not unusual, I don't think, in law that then there would be other impacts of that act and then it becomes a greater offence. If you steal somebody's intellectual property, if it's theft of somebody else's creation, then that's an offence against whoever created it. If there's damage done by that, then there's an additional victim. Is it unfair to imagine that there's less of a victim if the thing you've stolen has less impact on the purchaser—other than the fraud, which I think has been articulated—than with a health and safety issue, where there's an additional damage?
Conceptually, I'm just trying to figure that out. Isn't that the way it would work—whatever the sanction, forget about what it is—or could work?