No, no. A subamendment to the first part. I have two separate comments, but I want to make sure that I don't lose my turn.
With regard to the amendment, the difference between “has entered” and “is currently” makes a big difference depending on the history of the person. I will remind you of the case of Fabrikant in Montreal, the university teacher who ended up shooting someone at the university because of copyright issues and an intellectual dispute.
This is a case in which he should have and he could have been subject to a peace bond because he was a bit too aggressive verbally and bullied the person. He might have ended up using a peace bond. This peace bond would represent the kind of issue in which someone appears to be not that dangerous, but at the end of the day he ended up shooting someone.
I think the dimension of past issues should remain a consideration with regard to the final result. Maybe our guests would comment on my comment. Thank you.