Again, there have been hundreds of pages written by higher courts on what recklessness means, but at the risk of oversimplifying it, it's more than just carelessness. If I carelessly bump into Mr. Gilhooly, next to me, I may not even realize that he's there, but I should have realized. I'm just not even paying attention. But if I realize he's there, and I think, gee, is there risk I might bump into him, and then I go ahead anyway, that's recklessness. So people without any knowledge of the risk are not covered by recklessness, as I understand it.
Now there's another really important point here. Let's say there's a charter challenge to this legislation. The first thing the courts are going to do is to think, “We're not going to strike this down, but we're going to interpret this in way, if we can reasonably do so, that will make it survive.” What they will say is that mere carelessness goes too far. To respect the charter, they will use the more traditional definition of recklessness, which is that there has to be some knowledge of the risk, and proceeding in the face of that risk.