This probably explains why there's an emphasis, in your mind, that a three-year review would be warranted in the circumstances. We're wading into new territory right now. Given the lack of meaningful consultation with numerous groups across this country, we can all agree this particular piece of legislation was hastily put together. There was no urgency. There was a requirement for the government to react, but there wasn't that pressing urgency by which we have the bill that is now before us.
I appreciate your commentary, and I really appreciate your first point about the impacts of the law. I'm a former prosecutor. I have 30 years of prosecutorial experience. I prosecuted a number of offences involving women as the victims—sexual assault, aggravated assault—where these types of defences came up. I only had one case where I actually lost to a section 33.1 defence, but I'm aware of the overall impact that it has for victims.
Given the vagueness with which this legislation has now been drafted, I foresee the availability of this defence to open up much more litigation than we have currently seen. Inherently with that, that means more victims are going to be traumatized by the length of time by which these defences are going to be drawn out in courts.
Do you share that concern in terms of the delay issue and the overall impacts on victims?