Thank you, Mr. Chair.
And thank you, Ms. Rinella, for attending today.
I'd like to begin with two points of what I hope will be clarification. Then I'll ask some questions.
The first point of clarification is around the minister's answer. Having had the opportunity to listen to his evidence not long ago, I think what the minister was trying to say about section 386 and section 387 is that because of their particular requirements, they are much harder to convict upon than the broader offences of fraud impersonation. It's not that it isn't a problem, but just that the broader offences are easier and therefore more frequently resorted to for the kinds of problems you're addressing. Since that's the case, we don't need to worry about trying to reconstitute section 386 and section 387.
The second point of clarification I'd like to make is that the bill before us is largely not about the actual fraud offences but instead about what I might refer to as the pre-fraud offences; that is, the theft and possession and trafficking of information rather than the use of that information for fraudulent purposes. So it took me a while to understand where you're coming from. Without in any way taking away from the good points you make about how the fraud sections perhaps could be amended, I'm not sure this particular act is the venue to do that, insofar as it might almost change the entire architecture of the act.
Having said that, is there anything in this act we are considering that gives you concern? I understand there are things not in it that you'd like to see. Is there anything that's in it that gives your association concern?