Yes, and the reason I say it would scuttle the bill is that what we've learned in dealing with these bills is that there is not “an” amendment. If one amendment is good, 15 are a lot better, and that is what has mired this file for years and years.
I'll make this as brief as I can.
We have a criminal code on cruelty to animals that has served us very well for a long period of time, and what's more, it has a history. Prosecutors understand it, the people who work with animals understand the law, and the courts understand the law. The reason it does not work is that the penalties are so anemic that the courts throw up their hands, because if somebody runs a puppy mill and he's charged, convicted, and pays his $200 fine, or whatever it is, he's back in business in a week.
What I decided to do, and it's either right or wrong, is say that the law is not what's wrong, what's wrong is that we need to adjust the penalties, and that is why I purposely avoided changing any of the existing law, so that we have the context, we have the precedents, and what will be changed are the penalties that would be used.
Nothing prevents somebody else who carries a different brief, for whatever reason. They can change it tomorrow, as you all know. But one of the reasons it did not work very well before was that there was not enough consultation on that 20%. Nobody went and talked to the aboriginal people. Nobody actually sat down and explained why it would make a difference in protecting the actual animals to create a whole new part of the Criminal Code instead of using the part that is already there.
Anyway, I'll stop.