No. But that is the impression my hon. friend seems to have. We on the other hand think that the members of the judiciary are intelligent enough to reach a wise decision upon the facts of the case that comes before them, and within the wider terms of reference provided in Bill No. 7.
In order to demonstrate just how ineffective is this method which my hon. friends advocate, I should like to refer to the side-notes only of the main section 510 dealing with mischief in the existing code. In connection with mischief it refers to damage to house, ship, or boat; to bank, dyke, or seawall; to bridge, viaduct or aqueduct; to railway; to cattle; to ship; to signal; to bank, dyke or wall; to river or canal; to flood gate or sluice; to private fishery; to goods; to machines; to hop-bind; to letter bag; to tree or shrub and so on. All these are separate. The point I would make is that after specifying all these, of other things that could be the subject matter of mischief there must be scores more that are still not covered and that have to be covered by an omnibus clause.
Subtopic: CRIMINAL CODE