I believe that the current definition in proposed section 320.101 is too ambiguous to be able to say that for certain, one way or the other. And certainly if I were a criminal defence lawyer—I did a bit of criminal defence work before I came to work where I am now—I would be very concerned about the way this definition is written. I'm quoting from the Supreme Court of Canada, which has said:
It is a fundamental requirement of the rule of law that a person should be able to predict whether a particular act constitutes a crime.
Because the definition is so ambiguous, I think that all Canadians, particularly the pastors and the doctors you've just mentioned, Mr. Moore, deserve clarity and certainty in the law. It's not here. So adding a clarification, which has been on the Justice website for a long time, and which the Justice minister to his credit has been emphasizing in his oral remarks doesn't target that, which would be good, but it needs to be in the law. It has to be in the Criminal Code.