Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
My thanks to Mr. Blois for his comments. I was going to make the same proposal, because I was afraid that some of my colleagues would vote against the proposed amendment so that they could adopt their own afterwards.
Since it is not quite the same thing, it is important that we take the time to discuss it. Since the committee allows it, it is very appropriate to do so. So I agree with Mr. Blois that we should discuss it.
Having said that, I have very strong reservations about amendments NDP‑2 and LIB‑2 . If we change the wording from “could” to “would” or “will”—both of which are roughly equivalent and use different verb tenses, but have the same effect—we are going to have a problem, because the burden of proof will then be on the complainants. Remember all the testimony we have heard: whether it's trespassing or anything else, the problem with enforcing the current law is proving the damage. That's what becomes a chore afterwards.
Right now, farmers who have been assaulted on their private property and are in distress have to undertake proceedings, gather evidence and spend money to hire a lawyer to plead their case and prove that they have suffered damages. At the committee, we heard an example where water was poured into diesel fuel. In such a case, how do you prove that it was the trespasser who did it, if there are no photographs or other evidence? There is no way to prove it.
The current wording in the proposed clause 1 of the bill, “knowing that entering such a place could result,” frees the complainant from having to prove damage in terms of biosecurity. By keeping this wording, it would be written into the act that this person endangered the biosecurity of the farm, and I believe that was the intent of the bill that Mr. Barlow introduced.
Unless I am convinced otherwise by the two experts, I would urge members not to adopt either of the two amendments that may be introduced after this one.
