I do acknowledge that there is a category of activity that is covered by the bill that is not necessarily, or at least not conclusively, already prohibited by the law. I do acknowledge that, at least in the sense that the intentional infliction of emotional distress exists as a tort, a civil wrong, but it doesn't exist as a crime. So I do wonder, in an echo of a point that, I think, a previous contributor was seeking to make, if harassment or the intentional infliction of emotional distress is something that this House wishes to outlaw, then it should do so consistently, perhaps using that same test of, for example, communicating in a way that might objectively cause distress to a reasonable person, or might be—anyway, that test, in any case. 