I certainly agree that those, and many other examples, are hugely problematic. You're absolutely right that we do not categorically oppose the bill. We support the intentions, motivations and objectives of the legislation. Like I said, our goal is to see this bill be effective and be constitutionally sound.
When it comes to the specific interference and obstruction offences, we do have some concerns about their potential breadth. We would share some of the concerns that have been raised by other groups, such as the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, about what constitutes interference and about the way that it might capture conduct that it doesn't even necessarily intend to capture.
We'd also point to a number of other provisions that already exist and that should be utilized to address precisely the situations you've described. I know this is a question that's been raised elsewhere. There are existing mechanisms, so whether it's through the new bill or through existing mechanisms—