Mr. Chair, I have to confess that I'm having a hard time knowing whether we should take this proposed amendment seriously, knowing that the Green Party opposes the seal hunt and would like no seal hunt at all. Whether my colleague sincerely wants somehow with the amendment to make it safer, I'm not entirely sure. But I know she's an honourable colleague and friend, so I'll take her at her word on this.
My problem with the amendment is that it adds another level of protection. Basically the regulation as currently amended by Mr. Kerr's bill would say that the prohibition, the regulation, does not apply to somebody who happens to live within one nautical mile of somebody who's conducting a seal hunt activity. This amendment would say that if somebody in their daily activities happens to be on this land that's one nautical mile away, it won't apply to them either.
My problem with it is there's so much in the amendment that is unclear to me. What does “to frequent” mean? How often do you have to do that thing in order to be within this caveat? Or what is your normal course, what is a daily activity, and how would that be interpreted by the courts?
I just think there's so much here that is too fuzzy for a regulation and that it would need more thought than we have time for here, so at this point, we're inclined not to be supportive of this.