Mr. Chair, my question for Mr. Perron, or my comments when I read through this, would be that it seems Mr. Barlow's intent is that if someone were to enter the building in a fashion that could potentially cause a biosecurity risk, regardless of whether someone was holding an animal or bringing an animal in or whether the individual brought a particular item of clothing or food or something of that nature, that entrance would be more premised on whether the entry could potentially cause a biosecurity risk. I think that's quite broad in nature now.
I know what Mr. Perron is trying to do here by making sure we're a little more specific. I just don't know if it's necessary. It's intrinsic by the way the particular provision reads now that if someone is entering the building, regardless of themselves, with 50 people, with animals, with certain items, if they do something to cause a biosecurity risk, they could potentially be impugned under this legislation.
Although I appreciate Mr. Perron's attempt, I don't know if it necessarily is needed. I wonder if he could explain to me why it's absolutely necessary, because I'm reading that it would already be covered under the current provision.