There seems to have been quite a lot of debate about age versus vulnerability and which is the most important. My thought on it, and I'd like to canvass your thoughts as well, is that the vulnerability seems to be the key element. Obviously, age affects different people at different stages for different reasons.
Would you agree that this act sends a message to the Canadian public that we're not going to tolerate abuse of the aged, but that it's more focused on vulnerability than on age? Look, you could be very vulnerable at 50 versus 75. You could be a lumberjack at 75 and have all your faculties. Is vulnerability not the more important factor to take into consideration?