Well, I could be wrong. But am I wrong that we don't define vehicle...? I think it's not intentional, but Derek has got us on to something.
The VIN is not defined in the section that makes it an offence to obliterate it. Is that in proposed subsection (2)?
It's the same one as in subsection (2) of having possession, which is now.... Is it the same? Why doesn't it have letters in it?
I guess what I'm saying is that section 354 stays, gets a new name, and has that definition section of VIN. In the one we're proposing, section 353.1, it has “for the purpose of” in subsection (2). Why doesn't it have, more specifically, a number or letter or a definition that's...? We all know what a VIN is, but I'm not sure that is the best wording for it.
In fact, if you took Derek literally, you could say that a VIN means any number or other mark placed on the vehicle. It's possible--I'm just thinking about defence lawyer tactics. Why don't we work on a better definition of VIN? Or do you think that's the best there is out there?