Again, we're completely confident that all the provisions of this bill are constitutional.
You said we're setting up a situation where people are discussing the potential or the possible sexual exploitation of a child. Part of what we want to do is to prevent this kind of activity to begin with. That's what we're trying to do. I say that specifically with respect to the new offences we have in here. We want to stop these individuals beforehand. And I know the point you're going to make is that if the person commits the offence, then the elements are there. We're trying to back this up.
Now, with respect to your concerns about entrapment, the entrapment provisions of the Criminal Code will continue to apply, and they will apply to all the provisions of this act. So you would know perhaps the elements of an entrapment where the police go beyond just the discussion, and those provisions would continue to provide a defence for someone. But for those individuals who are in the business of agreeing to exploit a child, we're going to stop them in their tracks right there. If that's what they're agreeing to do, that will be an offence in this country.
Now, for that individual who says “I was entrapped” or “I was fooled” or “I was induced”, those sorts of arguments can be made, because the entrapment section will still apply. But for those individuals who are agreeing to set up some child, just because it's a police officer that they're in that discussion with, they will not be able to claim a defence against that. The entrapment will be there, but we're making it a crime to agree to start the exploitation of a child.