Just on that point, my understanding is that with Bill C-233, the judge has the discretion to require the ankle bracelet, so that's already in place today.
My understanding of the G‑1 motion that we had that Anna and Michelle were debating is that the amendment was removed because it would be automatically imposed, regardless of a judge's judgment, and this would then, we heard, penalize indigenous and marginalized women because it was automatic. The judge had no....
The way S-205 was written, it was explicit that the ankle bracelet would go on automatically, so there wasn't that discretion for the judge to decide.
The victims will be protected. I'm not a lawyer, as Michelle said, but that aspect, I thought, was because Bill S-205 would have penalized marginalized and indigenous women. Now the judge has the obligation and discretion in Bill C-233 not to marginalize and penalize indigenous women, but to make sure that if the ankle bracelet is needed, it would be put in place. Does that explain it?