It was to both. I don't mind chiming in here at this point, though, just to reflect on what Mr. Fortin mentioned, and then maybe I can have the analysts weigh in.
What I find difficult—and I understand Mr. Fortin's rationale—is that it seems to be unduly complicating the matter, because the whole point is that this is trust, power and authority for an act by which you're taking advantage of another person's vulnerability. That's his amendment.
Inherent in all of this is the person's vulnerability, which is confirmed by (b), but then (a) seems to run counter to that. I just don't know why we really need either of them, because the whole point is the vulnerability being taken advantage of. To me those two things seem to cancel each other out. I would like to hear from the legal experts on this point, please.