Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This is the same concern. PV-8 ensures that the prohibition may be for any period that is “reasonable”, and then it goes on to itemize them.
Just in response to Bob for a moment, I don't think what was being proposed, or what is being proposed here, reduces the discretion of the court. It is asking the court to make an order in what it views as “reasonable”, and in the previous amendment, “conditions or exemptions that the court considers to be necessary”.
Again, there's a certain amount of judicial discretion, but it's the role of Parliament to give the judiciary guidance in applying this law. I don't think any of us would want somebody who's been found criminally responsible, has been appropriately sentenced, and has served their sentence to be unable to continue to basically rehabilitate themselves and have the opportunity to access such things as jobs through the Internet.
That's why the court, in my amendment, is given the opportunity to consider a prohibition based on what's reasonable under the circumstances.