What I think is pertinent to the discussion right now is that because NDP-1 has passed, we're now encapsulating all persons, which I think is appropriate. We know farmers and stakeholders are already doing great work, and this will still make sure those people who don't take those issues seriously face the consequences under the legislation.
I think what we need our colleagues to weigh in on is that “could” and “would” present different standards. From a legal perspective, if a judge were to look at this—and let's just say with Mr. Perron's potential amendment aside—with regard to someone entering these places, the definition involving “could” is a very low threshold. That's very wide. It could encompass a whole host of different activities, both very, very low risk and higher risk. The amendments that Mr. MacGregor and I are proposing are to try to make sure the threshold is such that, by a reasonable standard, the action in question would constitute a biosecurity risk.
That's something I think our colleagues need to flesh out before we can actually adequately address Mr. Perron's piece. If we adopt Mr. Perron's amendment, notwithstanding the fact that Ms. Dudley said it might conform to the rest of the provisions of the act, that might leave the other piece hanging. I think it's important that we hear from our colleagues about their perspective on “could” versus “would” so that we can get that threshold.