I think Mr. MacGregor's question was more for the experts, but I can still try to answer it.
I'll start by answering Mr. Blois. We tried to keep in mind that we are about to pass a bill that may well be in effect for a long time, so we wanted to make it as effective and as stable as possible, without any loopholes. This bill applies to facilities that are closed, of course, but also to enclosed places where animals are kept. In this case, someone could walk up to the enclosure and throw in a chicken, say, as in Mr. MacGregor's example. But it could be something else. In such a case, the person would not have entered the enclosed place, but they would still have put something in it. So we just wanted to close that loophole.
Now, do we need to be that specific? Our interpretation of the current proposed wording is that the prohibition relates to entering a building or other enclosed place. So, if the person does not enter, are they in violation? It is important to remember that in court, judges cannot act at will. They have to interpret the law and stay within the law. That is why we are trying to fill in any gaps that may exist in order to make this bill effective.
Our experts may wish to add to my comments.