Are we concerned that by leaving that open, that by not specifically identifying the goods being trafficked in or used for fraud, or merely possessing, we are leaving the section too open, and therefore open to challenge?
Take the analogy of drugs, since we're talking about possession and trafficking here. We are very specific in the controlled narcotics and substances act, and very careful--very careful--to specify by schedule the items to be possessed or trafficked that are attached to crime.
Whereas we're not dealing with PIPEDA, which is an administrative penalty governed by its own privacy commissioner, but we're dealing with the Criminal Code, can you or your officials assure us--and perhaps, down the road, a judge or a defence lawyer or prosecutor--that it isn't too broad, that it will stand up in a court by being left open like that?