Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Of course the reason you don't see much of me is that I'm not allowed to be a member of this committee, and I am summoned by the committee due to the round of identical motions that were passed in every committee last fall to impinge on my rights to present such amendments at report stage. I am sure this was a PMO directive to make sure I showed up and had my amendments routinely slaughtered before committee. But I'm hoping that this one is so reasonable that my colleagues on the Conservative side will agree that this is an amendment that will help the bill and help the process for people who live near the seal hunt.
I want to raise one concern, and I'm not sure it has come up in any of your hearings. A number of court cases have examined whether the limitation on observing and access to and being near seal hunts as they take place violates section 2 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, particularly 2(c) , in respect of the right to freedom of expression.
In 1988 the Federal Court of Appeal ruled in the International Fund for Animal Welfare v. Minister of Fisheries and Oceans case that the limitation on being near the hunt was, as they call it, the locus limitation impinges on freedom of expression as protected by paragraph 2(b) of the charter.
They've gone on to examine whether that was a reasonable limitation on freedom of expression. Our charter rights are not absolute. You can have a reasonable limitation.
This question of reasonable limitation was also taken up by the Prince Edward Island Court of Appeal in the Biroc case, which is sometimes known as the Watson case.
I flag this because I think unless there's very good and substantial evidence that one nautical mile is a reasonable limitation on freedom of expression, this bill may, and I think quite accidentally, end up creating additional litigation, which the bill will not survive.
My amendment is not going to address that entire problem, but will at least eliminate problems for people who happen to live near, or frequent rather, the area in which the hunt takes place. It's a pretty straightforward amendment. Obviously, it's not a long bill. The amendment would change paragraph 33(2)(e), which currently reads that there's an exception to this one nautical mile limit “to a person who resides on land within one nautical mile of a person who is fishing for seals”.
My amendment is really very sensible and straightforward, and it would then read, “to a person who resides on or frequents, in the normal course of their daily activities, lands within”....
That's an amendment to avoid criminalizing the behaviour of people who are habitually and for normal reasons in the area in which the hunt may be taking place, but don't own or reside on land within the one nautical mile.