Thank you for the question.
When we were looking at the design of that particular offence, as you know, we were looking at the two treaties together, and they deal with separate subject matters: one is radiation material and devices, and the other one is nuclear material.
Now, the device is the only thing that is called to be made, so when we were designing that catch-all section 82.3 offence, we had to make some decisions. We saw that the “making” doesn't apply to nuclear material or radiation material; were there other verbs that could capture it? To be quite honest, we did look at “possess” and we looked at some of the existing offences in the code that used similar language, such as “manufactures”. The word “makes” was another one. There are a number of offences that use the concept of “make”.
Some of the courts have said that's a dictionary definition, which includes a completion, as the term is used—“to make it”—because if you haven't completed making it, you've attempted to make it. That's something different.
We said that if you've made it, you are in possession of it. When we made the decision about how to structure that offence, that was the thinking, to be honest.