I know the government has consulted with Transport Canada, so I don't have any complaint at all with the manner in which the government has proceeded.
This morning, I have to say, to put it politely, I've heard some legal propositions that are, at the very least, highly arguable, if not questionable--too many for me to try to address in the questioning time that I have. I am hoping that, at the very least, the committee will permit the government to make some written response to the legal or technical issues that have been raised here this morning, which are a little tough to get through in a seven-minute round of questioning.
That said, I'm happy Mr. Bigras pointed out that, in fact, “strict liability” does not mean there is no presumption of innocence. I'm happy Ms. Duncan pointed out that the provisions in this act are not absolute liability offences wherein prison would be problematic, but are strict liability offences wherein the Supreme Court of Canada has held that prison is not problematic.
I'd like to hit one or two things that I think are fairly simple. I'll begin with Mr. Giaschi on the issue of non-use value, which is found at clause 12, on page 19, proposed section 50.91, which I presume Mr. Giaschi is familiar with.
Do you remember from your law school days the old saw, expressio unius est exclusio alterius?
