Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Senator.
I just have a few questions.
I wasn't around for any of the previous legislation and the back and forth, but I've read the code, and I've read your bill, and I've read parts of Bill C-50, and I've read my colleague Mr. Holland's bill. I guess what I'm trying to get at, Senator, is that I respect what you've done in trying to move the issue forward. But in your attempt to move the ball forward but not lose the game, so to speak, do you think you could have pushed it a little further? In other words, are you open to friendly amendments that would move your bill more towards Bill C-50 without losing the battle?
If you don't know what I'm talking about--I suspect that you do--I'm talking about things like amending the bill to include definitions for animals. As you know, the sense of animal protection and cruelty in section 444 and on in the code is medieval. It's animals as possessions only, not as sentient beings and so on.
Do you think you could move on that point? Do you think you could move on making, as the code sort of does, the distinction between owned animals and wild animals go away? I respect what you're saying about the troubles bills get into when they encroach upon aboriginal rights or the pastimes of people who hunt and fish. I understand that. But in calibrating this, did you take into consideration just how far you could go to move the ball forward without losing the day?