I just have to say, full marks to Ryan for being very creative, but I can't imagine that scenario. This is for local people who happen to be.... I'd like to remind this committee that this is a private member's bill, and it's being defended as though it had been developed through the justice department and had been properly scrutinized, but it hasn't. Mr. Kerr, who brought this private member's bill forward, isn't here today to explain himself. I find that unusual, but in any case, it's a private member's bill, which means it was never subjected to the same degree of analysis as if it had been a government bill.
It is not a bill that relies on mens rea. It's entirely a question of physical location. If you're within one nautical mile of a hunt, and you happen to be a person from the community who doesn't reside within one nautical mile, you're going to be violating this. We'd like to think there might be judgment calls, but this will criminalize people who happen to be within one nautical mile, whether they reside within one nautical mile or not.
I submit to you, again, that this bill is overreaching and likely unconstitutional. It's a private member's bill, as has been the trend. I think today's hearing, for me, satisfies a question that I've had. How many of the private members' bills we've seen from Conservative members of Parliament are actually government bills put forward to avoid the same level of scrutiny that they would get if they were government bills?
In any case, I don't think I have support from my colleagues, although I really had hoped that my friends on the Conservative side would think this was a reasonable, modest improvement to avoid unintentionally criminalizing people who happen to live near seal hunts.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.