I understand why there has to be a threshold for “reasonable”, because some things might not be unreasonable--if that makes sense--so they're reasonable to me. I just have a concern that it will send a message that it's not such a serious threshold to actually adhere to, or a requirement to actually adhere to, and it could in fact undermine even a little bit the integral goal of this particular act and this portion of the act, section 34.
It may in fact be contradictory, somewhat, to what we're asking people to do, because on the one hand we're saying that they will have a requirement, and on the other hand we're saying that it just may not work out. How will we know--this was raised before--how much effort has been made? It's a very qualitative or subjective kind of decision. You don't want to be unfair or extreme, but you certainly don't want to allow too much flexibility in an area that has such serious potential ramifications on Canadian soil.