I see. It would probably be included in that.
I have one last question for you. It's basically the same one I put to the minister.
I understand that there aren't very many cases in the case law that deal with the same issue. The impact of Bill C-35 is fairly limited. It is a bit difficult for me to understand the logic behind the exclusion of certain kinds of animals. They are covered to some extent, but then, under mandatory minimum sentences, it says that a police dog is more important than, for instance, horses that go to war with people or something like that. It's a bit difficult for me to understand the logic behind that. Why was the distinction made?
I repeat that rising up against animal cruelty doesn't mean we dislike hunters. I heard all sorts of things in the speeches at second reading of Bill C-35. The legislation focuses on three categories. I am trying to understand the logic behind all this. To some, a seeing-eye dog is just as important as a police dog. Any kind of murder is experienced just as dramatically as a police dog's killing. I understand the argument about danger and a higher likelihood of danger. I am trying to understand the department's logic behind the way the bill was drafted.