Thank you.
This “I didn't know better” excuse is being used quite frequently in the court, and many of our judges in particular are stating that “because there was potentially no harm done, we can acquit you of this mischief charge that's being presented”. I keep referencing the mink farm case just outside of Ottawa because it's recent, where that very reason was used by the judge: “Yes, the person got into the building, but no damage was caused, so therefore I am going to acquit of that charge.”
What we are proposing is a slight change to proposed section 9.1 just to say this: “No person shall, without lawful authority, enter a building or other enclosed place in which animals are kept, to prevent the exposure of the animals to a disease or toxic substance that is capable of affecting or contaminating them”.
It's a simple change to take away that “nothing happened so therefore I'm not guilty” aspect of the bill.