We all know, Mr. Chair, that when you're trying to prove a criminal case that's beyond a reasonable doubt, there are many offences that have more than one defence. Certainly this clearly spells it out. As Mr. Calkins has said, it requires a specific intent to harm or kill the animal. We've had Mr. Wilks, who's been dog-handling, say that he's had some instances when something is about to happen and he has said, “I'm releasing the dog.” Was that actually heard? Was this really done on purpose?
Some of the lawyers may not pick up on that, but look, not every defendant in court is represented by a lawyer. Many people appear on their own behalf, and certainly this points it out clearly to the judge, in that there's the defence: it had to be specific. Those are terms that the common defendant without representation that I talk about would use: “I didn't do it on purpose and here's why”. It's clearly spelled out for the judge. It serves that purpose. For that reason, we'll be voting against the amendment.