Chair, first of all, this provision is going to come into effect after the fact, right? CFIA is going to have to determine through their investigation what exactly happened on the farm. They're going to have to see whether a person entered the building or enclosed place, and whether they knew or they were reckless as to the fact that their doing so put the animals in danger.
I actually appreciate what Mr. Blois brought forward. I think that adding the word “reasonably” tightens it up a little bit, because “could” is just too broad a term. I understand that Mr. Epp said that it is consistent with other parts of the act, but maybe the compromise here is to add the word “reasonably”.
With the subamendment we have before us and whether it's “will” or “could”, I think we have to pick a lane with regard to our language here. A judge is going to look at that and say, well, which one is it? It's just leaving a little bit too much confusion. I think I will vote against the current subamendment and try to go with the reasonable addition that Mr. Blois has included. That allows us to keep the word “could” but further modifies it to give a little bit more certainty.