Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I tried to follow Mr. Casey's argument for this, and while his argument wasn't hard to follow from a logical perspective, I believe the clause as it stands right now is, from my perspective, best left alone.
Mr. Casey's logic is that if it's surplus and if it doesn't change anything, there's no point in changing it away from the legislation that currently exists or as it's currently written, but I think that for greater certainty.... I've been in front of courts before, and there are times when the crown, or defence lawyers, or other people may not read the inclusivity language that might be present in other parts of the code. These kinds of things can get missed, so for greater certainty, I think, this clause, or this piece of this clause, or this wording in this clause is fine the way it's written. I would like to see it there.
I would hate to see a misinterpretation by a judge, a crown prosecutor, a defence lawyer, or by somebody else for that matter, if somebody is driving a car down the road, an officer unleashes his dog, and a perpetrator runs across that road with the dog in pursuit, gets hit by the car, and is maimed, or killed, or whatever. That's inadvertent. There was no intent. There was no wilful or lawful excuse in doing, so or there was no wilful intent. I think that would exonerate that person in a much more clarified manner. I think the language as it is right now is fine.