No. I answered that question from Mr. Wilks earlier about the charter. I think in every democratic society we have to find that balance between having freedom of speech or freedom of expression and inflicting serious and severe harm. That's where the Criminal Code has defined certain elements on which freedom of speech infringes, things like hate speech. We know clearly that there's a definition of hate speech, and we know clearly that there is a definition of criminal activity using speech or communications within which to exercise that. So no one, especially people like me.... I'm a Liberal, and I very much believe in the charter, and I very much believe in and agree with freedom of speech and freedom of expression.
As I said earlier on, I like to think that if you ask 10 doctors for a diagnosis, you'll probably get 14. I like to think that if you ask 20 academics for an opinion on anything, you will probably get about 40 opinions. So we all know that it's something in which an opinion is an opinion is an opinion. I have consulted with many academics who have given me another opinion.
I notice on your list of people who are going to be witnesses that in fact a couple of them will tell you why. The police are also saying that they need tools, and that it's very unclear under the law, because the law isn't clarifying this issue with regard to what tools they have and do not have. Nobody is suggesting that police should have the freedom to investigate anything or everything, but they really wanted clarification themselves, because they need to have certain tools in certain areas. The case of Amanda Todd was one example in which they didn't have the tools they needed to deal with the issue of criminal harassment. It wasn't bullying; it wasn't the people who were saying things about her; it was a person criminally harassing her, and they were not able to get to the bottom of that.