The answer to that is that that may be the case, because there are situations in other countries where, under the rubric of not causing any pain, suffering, or injury to an animal, it includes angling, and in particular, catch-and-release angling. It is not, the way the other bills read, without lawful excuse. When I hook a salmon in a catch-and-release position, I don't have the excuse that I need the food. I'm hunting or fishing for sport. I do not have a lawful excuse.
I want to indicate something. If that bill had passed in that fashion...having a valid fishing, hunting, or trapping licence from a province of competent jurisdiction does not count as a valid excuse if you're charged under that Criminal Code section. The case from the Supreme Court of Canada that made that so is the Jorgensen case. I can give you the notation, but I don't have it right here. But that is a fact, and it was specified to us.
I asked the question of the Department of Justice in another hearing. I asked, if we have valid fishing and hunting licences from provincial jurisdictions or a proper jurisdiction, whether that is a valid excuse. The answer was no, it is not, and I was referred to that case. I read the case, and that's the way the law is. It's a constitutional thing. And the other is that a provincial licence does not trump a Criminal Code charge.
You can imagine how that was reacted to by those folks who fish. You can imagine the reaction in relation to the aboriginal people as well.