Mr. Taylor, proposed subsection 718.4(1.1) does not in any way, in my view, respectfully, abridge the intent of proposed subsection 718.4(1). It's a clarification, which is why it follows. We're not changing the safety valve. We're not changing how the court would approach an individual accused. We're adding a clarification on top to say that we will stay with the individual accused and still provide them the offer, still avail ourselves of the safety valve, but that we will not consider reasonable....
You can challenge the constitutionality of an MMP on a bunch of grounds. Our amendment CPC-23 talks only about this specific ground, which is to say you cannot challenge the MMP as a whole using a reasonable hypothetical. That's what it says. Why not take the extra step to be prudent and cautious so that we're not back here in three to five years, looking at another Senneville decision?