Okay. I don't want to put you on the hot seat here on the technicalities of it, but it imposes a presumption about the age of the victim. It removes the defence where the accused would say that he or she didn't know the age of the victim. Then it says—and this is put in here for the police—it is not a defence to a charge under the above sections that “if the person with whom the accused agreed or made an arrangement was a peace officer or a person acting under the direction of a peace officer”...that the person referred to above didn't even exist.
This has to do with luring, communicating, making an arrangement with a young person. We all agree we want to stop that. We want to make it impossible for that to happen. But this seems to set up a scenario where there was no victim or potential victim, and there can be no defence about the knowledge of age of the non-existent victim. And there are pretty clear tools and immunity to police officers to go ahead and do something like that—in other words, to lie to somebody over the phone, lie to somebody over the Internet. Even if the person didn't exist, it's not a defence to the charge to say that there was no person.
Have you in your work ever used that type of mechanism, where there wasn't a victim, there wasn't a real criminal offence that took place at all—the setting up of an arrangement, nothing ever happens, talk on the phone?