Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you both for being here.
I wanted to follow up on a few points made by the minister.
The Senate did notice that the “making a device” offence from at least one of the treaties was not in the initial bill. Nobody had any problem with putting it in.
The minister's response didn't appear entirely convincing when he said that he thought it was already covered by possessing or distributing. He went to say that if you're possessing or distributing, you must also be in the business of making. Now, that doesn't follow, so I'm wondering if there's any other reason, apart from what the minister gave, that you felt at the initial stages that making a device was already covered somewhere and didn't need to be in the bill.