Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
First, I have no objection to this amendment. That said, my party held several consultations before suggesting any changes. We considered some changes, but, each time, we were told that it could change how the Health of Animals Act is applied. We considered whether or not we should touch the proposed section 9.1. We were told that it was better to leave it as is, with the wording “without lawful authority or excuse.”
I'm not really opposed to the amendment, but I'm wondering, if those words are taken out, does that mean that someone who had the authority to do so could be charged later?
I'm sure my colleagues remember what we have heard from various witnesses who were concerned about there being no inspections. I'm thinking, for example, of inspectors from the Quebec ministry of agriculture, fisheries and food, who might have lawful authority or excuse.
My question is for Mr. MacGregor. Has his party dug into this aspect of the issue?
Based on the discussions and opinions that I have had, everyone said that the proposed wording should be left in place. So I would like my colleague to convince me that his amendment is appropriate.