I think it probably does. The reality is that unless the police station is next door, they could never get there on time. That is simply the reality on the ground. In my view, it would have been sufficient to say that if you make the arrest, you must have reasonable grounds.
I always favour the reasonable grounds language. I know it's not in the proposed amendment. I favour it because it has more flexibility and shows a lot more trust and respect for the citizens whose properties and safety are actually on the line to make that judgment call. It's very easy for all of us sitting in this committee room to say, “Well, what if you get hurt? We really don't want you to get hurt. Why don't you just let him take the plants?” I will submit that this is a slightly paternalistic approach, and at the root of it, it doesn't seem to place enough respect on the people who have the most stakes in this scenario.