I don't want to hog the microphone, but I can respond to that.
Again, just to reiterate, the court said that lane A wasn't a viable option of creating a stand-alone defence. The reason it said this wasn't a viable option is that the objectives of protecting women and girls, and also having enough accountability.... It simply wasn't a viable alternative.
What they were really saying is that the only thing that would satisfy the objective of Parliament is amending section 33.1. It never said that you have to follow lockstep with its suggested wording—for a very good reason, because it knows that Parliament can engage in the kinds of consultations that you're doing right now. What it did say is that it needs to be a minimum criminal standard, and there are a number of ways you can do that.