For me, there are different elements of the offence that need to be proven by a crown in a court of law. That's not to say that a given situation, a given fact scenario, might not equally fit under section 279.01 and subsection 212(2) or 212(2.1). They might equally fit and you might see charges, in fact, under both of those provisions, as we did in the Nakpamgi case. I hope I am pronouncing his name properly.
So you have a situation where basically crown or law enforcement generally have a set of tools they can use to attack these serious cases, and in both of these offences, whether it's trafficking or child prostitution, we see very high maximum penalties. So we don't worry so much, I guess, which offence is used. We simply hope that crown and police will choose the one that's most easily provable, based on the facts that can be proven in a court of law beyond reasonable doubt, given the facts of the case that can be proven in court.
I hope that answers your question.