In short, I don't believe we have accurate statistics, because much of what we heard in both the drafting process and the consultation period was anecdotal. Many of the injuries that animals have suffered have often gone unreported. They wouldn't necessarily have resulted in a criminal prosecution, for example. In the case of Quanto, obviously, the facts were laid out very clearly before the court. It was well reported. I'm also aware of instances, one in particular, where a police horse was struck by a vehicle deliberately, resulting in catastrophic injury to the horse, and they had to put the horse down. We're also aware of some cases involving a person with a seeing-eye dog that was attacked. Of course, very often an animal's natural protective instincts will be to protect the person that they're with, and that animal was injured.
In short, Mr. Casey, there are well-documented cases that we're aware of. There are others that have been reported anecdotally. In the final analysis, what we attempt to do is create a higher threshold under the law that will protect these animals that have that added element of responsibility, that bring about that service component. That's what is being pulled out and set apart from the animal cruelty laws that already exist. That is the intent. It has been drafted specifically with that purpose in mind.