A fellow witness, Mark Sandler, gave a very compelling and comprehensive response to some of those matters, which I would indeed echo. From a deterrent standpoint, there's the signalling to those in breach of the law that it adds to their record. Also, there's the signal it sends to law enforcement and to partners at every level of government that this is a matter that should be a priority. There is a requirement for enhanced enforcement that has been a large part of the problem until now. That is why I made my reference to how political leadership—and also, with some specific recommendations about the FPT, the federal, provincial and territorial meetings of the relevant ministers and their counterparts—at every level of government has not been sufficiently utilized for hate speech matters, and whether, for questions of enhancing enforcement and coordination, a specialized working group could be created after a meeting.
Surrounding the questions of attorney general consent, it's presented as a zero-sum game between the current clogged system, where there's not enough movement on approvals and removing it altogether. However, perhaps the FPT meetings can also be a forum for enhanced co-operation among levels of government, on approvals of prosecutions by the AG. I think there are other alternatives that can be offered to ameliorate the situation in terms of providing the relevant consent at the federal level and in partnership with the provinces, territories and even the municipalities.