Yes.
Again, this is a clarification of the law as it already stands. One troublesome thing we're seeing.... We have a case like Morales from 1992—it's been around for a very long time—that says public safety is paramount. However, we see all these other conditions that don't necessarily have to do with public safety, or even primary grounds, as discussed in Pearson, another 1992 Supreme Court of Canada case.
I think this may go to what Mr. Rankin said, which is that when we make these legislative changes, we don't see the results. Clearly stating these things in statute gives, as Ms. Myers said, something for us to grab onto, something I can appeal, something I can make an argument about in court.