Yes, and thank you for the question, because it reminds me of what I didn't answer on your last question, which I think dovetails perfectly into that. It goes back to my point about legislating generally and applying that specifically.
I'm going to use an example. Again, I'm going to preface this by saying that I am not demeaning or minimizing any of the purposes of this bill, but in the Criminal Code we have theft charges: we have theft over, theft under, theft of clams from clam beds, and theft of cattle. That needs to be changed, and I'd make the same arguments there. To accomplish the goal of calling a spade a spade, to ensure that the judiciary and prosecutors turn their minds to the important issues you've addressed—and it might be beyond the scope of what this committee can do at this point—I think the better way to legislate is statements of principle, of aggravating factors.
We have a list of aggravating factors. This already is an aggravating factor. It already is, but we can make it explicit in the Criminal Code that if an offence of physical harm is repeated, is egregious, or is for certain purposes, it should be explicitly addressed and considered as an aggravating factor. That would direct the judiciary and prosecutors to address it specifically, and it would not lead to some of the problems that I've alluded to earlier. That's the model that I think would be preferable. I think that would accomplish the goals you've mentioned and also the goals that Mr. Hussen mentioned and that are, I think, important to the sponsor of the bill and, indeed, important to society at large.