I have two quick points, Mr. Chair. I don't think we want to prolong this given the inevitability that's coming.
One, you have to appreciate that what we're trying to do here—those of us who are supporting this—is to make it easier for police and prosecutors to be able to prosecute breaches of this type of conduct. The more specific it is, the better chance they have of being able to lay the charge and getting a conviction. The more general it is in terms of the wording, the more difficult the job they're going to have.
I will make one final point with regard to our judiciary. I've been as supportive as anybody on this committee of our judiciary. I have the greatest respect for them, but I also know they're not perfect. Using one example in terms of legislation we've historically passed that required judicial determination, I'll use the requirement to order DNA samples to be taken. In the first four years of that law having been passed, in only 50% of the cases where DNA was mandatory did our judges do it. It was overlooked. Our crowns were way too busy. They didn't draw it to their attention. The judges missed it.
To expect that somehow magically in this case, as was suggested by my colleague from the Liberals, they are automatically going to do this is way beyond the reality of how our courts function.