Certainly, it's similar to other provisions. I wouldn't go as far as calling it inconsistent. I would say it's different in the sense that, for example, the reference to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act is broader in application. So if this committee and Parliament were to adopt the language as proposed here, it would be taking a deliberate policy choice to limit this aggravating factor to these circumstances. That may have implications in terms of what a court might do in the future. They may, for example, say, “While Parliament has chosen to make this circumstance an aggravating factor, the fact that the recruitment took place at a shopping mall, for example, or inside a school, is not included; therefore, I won't take that into consideration as an aggravating factor.”
It's not inconsistent. It's hard to predict what the courts might do, but those are the implications of taking that decision, as I understand it.