How have the words “for the purpose of hunting” in s.45(1)(b) of the Criminal Code been interpreted?

It is argued by the appellants that the words “for the purpose of hunting” in s.45(1)(b) are a clear expression of legislative intent to create a full mens rea offence. I do not agree. The words connote a mental element in the offence but as we have just seen in Strasser v. Roberge that alone will not assist the appellant in placing the offence in the first category of full mens rea offence unless it can be said that the legislation has thereby clearly and explicitly stipulated that the prosecution should have the same burden of proving mens rea as it does in a criminal offence. In my view the words fall short of this.