Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to the witnesses who are appearing today.
I'd like to direct a question to the sergeant.
There's been some talk about section 351, and Madame Boivin has alluded to it. It's been suggested that subsection 351(2) of the Criminal Code, the disguise with intent to commit an offence, should be sufficient to deal with the issue of a masked individual in riots.
In the case of the Vancouver riot the police department acted diligently and identified over 1,500 separate criminal acts involved in the riot. Also, a number of vandals were disguised. Yet of the 226 charges laid by the Vancouver police, only two charges have been laid under section 351. I'm not sure if there have been convictions. This suggests to me that the provisions of subsection 351(2) are difficult to apply, meaning there are evidentiary issues.
Can you expand on that? Can you explain why there are such difficulties, in your experience as a police officer?