For us, at this point in time, it's really unclear what's being asked for.
We certainly think it's important that, if there's an animal welfare emergency, there needs to be recognition of that.
What we're also hearing is that it's industry practice. We hear about flexibility being needed. We've heard other terms, such as “extenuating circumstances” and “flexibility”, and then discussion about systemic issues. Systemic issues aren't unforeseeable. They are part of a poorly organized system, whether we're talking about routes or locations for rest stops. This all needs to be considered from the animal welfare perspective.
If guidance is required on subsection 76(1)—and we appreciate what's being asked for by our industry colleagues—then we would like to see that it's done and that it's done not just with industry but also with others, like us and our industry partners.
I hear and understand the idea that this could create loopholes, and that's not the intention. I think the person before said...though I don't think that's the case, but let's ensure that it's not the case and that the guidance is really focused on animal welfare emergencies.