Yes, Mr. Chair. We did reflect on the question Mr. Casey put. In response to the comment made by Mr. Calkins a moment ago, it is true that lawyers may become unfamiliar with parts of the code. If you haven't prosecuted impaired driving for a while, you may not know that there's a specific provision that requires you to do X. It may be that you forgot the requirement to provide notice. In the particular situation we have here, it may be that the prosecutor forgets about section 429 and would look at the offence without that expression “wilfully and without lawful excuse” and say, “My goodness, have I got a strict liability offence here?”
In fact, you might get some greater litigation on the fact that the court would say that there has to be criminal intent there, so then they will have to interpret the criminal intent. By removing it with the intention of avoiding litigation, you're actually opening the door to more litigation, as the court is being invited both by the defence and by the crown to assign the proper criminal intent, because that's really what “wilfully” is. It's a description of the criminal intent. If it's not there, the court may say, well, “knowingly”.....
I'm just starting my comments, but yes, we did have a look, and that's one of the problems that we've identified if you remove the definition or the description of the criminal intent, and—