Yes, definitely.
As I said at the beginning of my presentation, I did check with our legislative drafters to make sure that the provisions were consistent. Some elements were changed because they already existed in the current code thanks to Ms. Smith's bill. Extraterritoriality is not included in my bill.
As for definitions, the work was done well. We were very careful not to create any overlaps and to ensure that there were no inconsistencies between the definition proposed by Ms. Smith and the new definition. The new definition simply improves on the old one. However, there is one thing to point out. There is one element that is in the English definition but not in the French one. We changed that. So you have to be very careful. I have no problems with amendments that ensure consistency, but you have to be careful; I am being very frank with you. I was very careful to ensure there were no overlaps. The legislative drafter looked at all of that. However, we are all human. We can all make mistakes or forget something. If you see any overlaps and you want to change them, I have no problem with that at all.
I think the main point is to not weaken the bill. Its strength lies in the consecutive sentences, presumption, the international versus national aspect and the special provision on sexual exploitation. I believe that if we keep the substance, the heart and the foundations of the bill, we will have a bill that is very strong. However, if we get rid of all the rest, I believe the bill will be less effective.