I just wanted to ask a question of Ms. Morency about the content of a judicial order prohibiting the use of a digital network. Right now in section 161, for example, the code refers to prohibiting an offender from “using a computer system within the meaning of...for the purpose of communicating with a person under the age of 16 years.” So you have a specific reference to a computer system and to communicating with a person under 16 years.
When we add the new paragraph (d), which I'd like to amend, there's no reference to communicating with a person, any person, and there's no reference to anything, even to communicating. It is simply prohibiting the person from “using the Internet or other digital network”. That's the same thing as saying “any digital network”. My question to you is that if a judge is asked to do this, is there a risk here that a judge may simply issue a prohibition order using the words of the section, so that the judge's order, the court's order, will read, “You're prohibited from using the Internet or any other digital network”?
If your answer is yes, a judge may do that, my reaction is no, I don't want judges to do that, because we won't be able to enforce that. It doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of being enforceable. There's not enough clarity. If we're to prohibit a citizen, albeit a convicted citizen, from using a digital network, I think we ought to know which digital networks he or she is prohibited from using. My question is. will a judge simply adopt the words of the section? Could a judge simply adopt the words of this section in making a prohibition order?