I'm serious. Based on the last answer I got from the minister, there's no use pursuing it.
With regard to proposed section 402.2, at the briefing, Mr. Minister, your staff was kind enough to pass me some information. I was concerned about this proposed section. They pointed out the section of the code around housebreaking tools. This is what this is drawn from, and the Supreme Court of Canada decision, R. v. Holmes, back in 1988.
You may want some assistance from Mr. Bartlett on this.
The section of the Criminal Code on the housebreaking tools uses the wording “without lawful excuse”. It seemed to me that was an essential ingredient in the decision by the Supreme Court of Canada. That wording doesn't appear here; we substituted for it “who knowingly obtains or possesses”.
When I first read the bill, and before I looked at that case in the other section of the code, I was really concerned about the ability of our prosecutors to be able to prove this section. I wonder if you or somebody else could comment on it. I have real problems with whether this is going to be useful.
Let me just add to that. I think we've all expressed support for the rest of the bill, Mr. Minister. We just want to be sure that it can be as effective as possible.