That raises a bunch of questions.
In that this section 362 is the only place that identification information is used, the first question I might have for you is--I think you've answered it--the theft of identification information is certainly not an offence, unless it's put in here.
The second point is, if I find Mr. Moore's wallet on the ground–I do not obtain it through false pretense or by fraud, I just find it on the ground–and I use it with the intent to commit an offence of fraud and the other, section 403, have I committed an offence?
Let's do two years down the road, where identification information has been judicially considered and we know what it is–we don't know what it is because we're just creating it. I find identification information on the ground and I get a good lawyer, and I don't get it by these means.... Mr. Lee's amendment is about the means of the obtaining of the identification information. If it's not an offence already, how is it then redundant? It may well be out of the scope of the act, and I understand that, but it's certainly not redundant. Wouldn't it help?