Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I also want to welcome our witnesses.
I have a question for Mr. Graham. The present subsection 351(2) of the Criminal Code sets out the offence now of disguise with intent. It effectively states that any person:
...who, with intent to commit an indictable offence, has his face masked or coloured or is otherwise disguised is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years.
And as the annotation in Martin's Annual Criminal Code states, the crown must prove this intention.
You seemed to, in your remarks, express concern—and I would put it the other way, justification—for this present legislation on the grounds that the crown is required to prove intent. What is wrong with that? Why shouldn't the crown be required to prove intent? Shouldn't that be the normal process with respect to criminal prosecution?